A Rebellious People

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some of my hillbilly cousins HATE LOTR because it doesn't mention churches and the like. I hope they ulcer to death.

[no one]

Arrangements are being made.

[Simon Moon]

Nope, you're the only one here who has suffered utter defeat I'm afraid. My banner flies high over the burning ruins of your non points. And you in those ruins you sit so broken by the utter humiliation you have suffered that you have become delirious and are imagining things that have not occurred as to not have to face the shame of your complete annihilation by my hands. Absolutely fabulous this TOTAL VICTORY of mine !!!



I dedicate MY unchallenged and absolute victory over you to the glorious nation of Canada 


By contrast here is your flag of surrender

A flag that truly suits you  

You made the assertion that infants do not have the RIGHT to live within the womb, ergo sir, I want you to explain why the woman has more of a 'right' to end her child's life because of her own poor life decision. Prove to me that the infant does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT. And if you say its her body its not, the infant as I have proved has its own cognizance.

First of all, it is not an infant. It is a fetus. An infant is a baby that has been delivered.

Nice try at poisoning the well, you clown.

The woman has a right to end her pregnancy, because she does not have to allow another life to use her body for life support if she chooses not to.

Please name one other circumstance where someone is forced to sustain the life of another life against their will.

[no one]

But gawd and mageek buuk, Simon. Are you forgetting about that?

[Simon Moon]

You made the assertion that infants do not have the RIGHT to live within the womb, ergo sir, I want you to explain why the woman has more of a 'right' to end her child's life because of her own poor life decision. Prove to me that the infant does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT. And if you say its her body its not, the infant as I have proved has its own cognizance.

Fetus's have the right to live in a woman's womb, but NOT at the expense of the woman's rights.

No one has the right to order someone to act as a life support system for another person.

You anti-choice people don't want to give fetus's the same rights as a person already born, you want to give them special rights.

Let's say you wake up one day with a 4 year old person connected to your body for you to act as their life support system for 9 months. If you have them disconnected, it will absolutely end their life.

Should you be forced to continue to live with this other person using you for life support?

[The Valkyrie]

Nope, you're the only one here who has suffered utter defeat I'm afraid. My banner flies high over the burning ruins of your non points. And you in those ruins you sit so broken by the utter humiliation you have suffered that you have become delirious and are imagining things that have not occurred as to not have to face the shame of your complete annihilation by my hands. Absolutely fabulous this TOTAL VICTORY of mine !!!



I dedicate MY unchallenged and absolute victory over you to the glorious nation of Canada 


By contrast here is your flag of surrender

A flag that truly suits you  

You made the assertion that infants do not have the RIGHT to live within the womb, ergo sir, I want you to explain why the woman has more of a 'right' to end her child's life because of her own poor life decision. Prove to me that the infant does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT. And if you say its her body its not, the infant as I have proved has its own cognizance.

Because it's not an infant, you fuckwit!

[brewer]

I think somebody must have run out of weed.
 

[Authari]

You made the assertion that infants do not have the RIGHT to live within the womb, ergo sir

And they do not there is nothing you have appealed to thus far that would grant them such an intrusive right.

 I want you to explain why the woman has more of a 'right' to end her child's life because of her own poor life decision.

Because the fetus exists in her body and the state of pregnancy is a function of her body as well as the act of sex. No one has the right to curtail her sexual freedoms nor any right to keep her in a state of pregnancy against her will. And nothing you have presented thus far can give such a prescription that it does.

 Prove to me that the infant does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT. 

Prove to me that it does. Give the prescription that gives it the right to live in someone else's body against will. You can't because it doesn't exist. Appealing to DNA won't do it. Appealing to anatomy won't do it. It's fiction.

And if you say its her body its not, the infant as I have proved has its own cognizance.

The fetus's ability to think is irrelevant to the fact it's living in her body and she has the right to expel it and no fact you can't point to says she doesn't.


Now keep waving your surrender flag



Meanwhile


The glorious Maple Leaf flies proudly!!!

The moment you have to fall back on the 'prove to me it does' and saying that nothing I have 'appealed' to would give them the Right I have appealed using reason and logic and all my points still stand, you rejected all of them saying flagrantly 'they have no right! they have no right!' yet when I asked you to prove that they have no right after illustriously proving to you that they do have a right you fall back on the 'prove to me it does' after I already have done so. Saying 'they have no right' doesn't mean they do not have that right even if you believe in your carnal heart that would rather end the life of a sentient being because you've convinced yourself to value a life free of consequences rather than take responsibility for your actions we give rights to Sentient Beings because our society demands equality, you think that one's age determines whether one receives such rights or not, that the unborn ought to be sacrificed over the altar of the gratification of the carnal desires of men and women, why stop at ones age when determining what rights they should receive, why don't you take it a step further and say that the rights one will receive is dependent on their race. In Nazi Germany you would be yelling at the Jews going to the concentration camps, "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT!"

But you would never do such a thing! Really? Your prejudice against the unborn children for their age speaks differently, and you support the murder of millions of innocent sentient beings capable of emotions capable of feeling both fear and love because you believe 'they have no right' despite the fact as we have proven that they are their own individual being.

You lost because you were not fighting for the cause of God, I won this argument because you have proven yourself incapable of saying anything to support your claim 'they have no right' only stating how you believe a promiscuous woman ought to also, in lieu of her poor decisions, be able to take the life of an innocent sentient being who is her very own child, a mother should never take the life of her own child, such things are sacrilege.

[Authari]

You made the assertion that infants do not have the RIGHT to live within the womb, ergo sir, I want you to explain why the woman has more of a 'right' to end her child's life because of her own poor life decision. Prove to me that the infant does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT. And if you say its her body its not, the infant as I have proved has its own cognizance.

Fetus's have the right to live in a woman's womb, but NOT at the expense of the woman's rights.

No one has the right to order someone to act as a life support system for another person.

You anti-choice people don't want to give fetus's the same rights as a person already born, you want to give them special rights.

Let's say you wake up one day with a 4 year old person connected to your body for you to act as their life support system for 9 months. If you have them disconnected, it will absolutely end their life.

Should you be forced to continue to live with this other person using you for life support?

You're telling me that if I hook up to a 4 year old for 9 months it will save its life? Jesus Christ I'd have to be some kind of monster to say 'fuck you I don't want you connected to me go die you fucking little child you're a worthless piece of shit that should never been born' I don't have to be forced to do anything in this scenario because I'd voluntarily say 'hook me up' if it was to save some kid's life.

And no I don't want to give unborn infants any special rights, just the right to life which you and I enjoy, and I do not think that the mother's promiscuity should play a deciding factor in determining whether that unborn child ought to live or not, certainly I don't think that just because a woman spread her legs that that gives her the right to terminate the life of a sentient being capable of feeling love and fear, her own child none the less, and I am not even the father of the child in our hypothetical situation why should I a stranger care more for someone else's life than a bunch of self-proclaimed humanitarian atheists. Seems to me like you're not so humanitarian after all calling for innocent blood to be shed.

[Deesse23]

You're telling me that if I hook up to a 4 year old for 9 months it will save its life? Jesus Christ I'd have to be some kind of monster to say 'fuck you I don't want you connected to me go die you fucking little child you're a worthless piece of shit that should never been born' I don't have to be forced to do anything in this scenario because I'd voluntarily say 'hook me up' if it was to save some kid's life.

After all these pages you still didnt understand a thing.
In YOUR world, its not up to you to decide whats gonna happen. You will not have come to the point where you decide to stay hooked. Your opinion on this will be IRRELEVANT.
Its not about what you choose and why, but about the fact that you can NOT choose.

And no I don't want to give unborn infants any special rights,

Yes you do. Otherwise please tell us in which case person #1 has the right to use the body of person #2, and person #2 has no say in this.
GO!

just the right to life which you and I enjoy, and I do not think that the mother's promiscuity should play a deciding factor in determining whether that unborn child ought to live or not

Bolding mine
And again, i call you out for misogynism, you misogynist peice of shit. Women get pregnant all the time, mosty without being promiscuous.
Your disdain for women really shows. So, fuck you.

, certainly I don't think that just because a woman spread her legs that that gives her the right to terminate the life....

not necessary to proivde yet more evidece of your misogyny.

How did you come to hate all women so much. Was that prevalent before your religion poisoned your mind, or were you a misogynist piece of shit beforehand?