I'm a progressive I'm also pro life, abortion rights are doomed, give up the fight.

No, it doesn't.

 

What generalities was I speaking in?

All that really matters is that the zygote will produce a human and other cells will not. It really is just that simple.

I can't understand why anyone would need to argue in this way.

 

You do NOT speak for all millennials because the MAJORITY of them are PRO-CHOICE.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018...e-becoming-much-more-liberal-on-abortion.html

 

Wouldn't you have a male equivalent?

 

Disingenuous disinformation manipulated by an admitted anti-women's rights advocate.

For example here is a statement made in your link;

Here is the link to that Gallup poll supplied in the article;

https://news.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx

No one in 2018 can legitimately call a 2010 poll "recent" especially when THIS is the LATEST Gallup poll on the same topic!

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235652/young-adults-remain-supportive-abortion-rights.aspx

 

SOME will die of neglect, or ALL?

 

I'm asking you what form the 'fixing' took.

 

If making abortion illegal would FORCE women to give birth, then why did so many get abortions even when abortion was illegal?

 

Renee said: ↑
Isn’t it interesting that a woman who is sexual is defined as a whore, slut, tramp etc. but men aren’t for doing the same thing.

No, unfortunately, in general ,there is no male equivalent words to whore, slut, tramp etc...

However there ARE men who ARE whores, sluts, and tramps but society in general has always ignored what men do and only persecuted and labeled the women.....that's just human ignorance.....

 

More of your " I don't know what else to post so I'll ask Really Meaningless Silly questions...""""

 

Because DUHHHHHHHHHH that's how desperate they were to NOT be pregnant....goodGAWD ! Do you KNOW any people? Have you read ANYTHING about history?

Some women will get abortions, some won't.

Banning abortion DOES force some women to gestate when they really don't want to.

Maybe they can't find a safe place to have one or fear some Real Big ScumbagPrickDickAntiChoicer will turn them in to the police.

You have a Big Problem understanding that women are individuals.

No matter what you've been told women are individuals, they do NOT all think alike, act alike, feel alike...

You can argue that's wrong until the end of time but that won't change...




And whether you think women are human or not they STILL have the right to their own bodies just like YOU and everyone else....

 

Right on schedule , an Anti-Choicer finds he has no argument or facts to back up anything they've posted and has to go into insults and goofiness....right on schedule...

Sackeshi: "" using then to avoid periods for your convenience""


I wonder how he can explain how having an abortion is used to AVOID periods....WHAT?


UH MILLENNIAL! HEY IT'S PREGNANT WOMEN WHO DON"T HAVE PERIODS ….NOT WOMEN WHO ABORT !!!!


OMGAWD MILLENNIALS!!! MISSED THAT BIOLOGY CLASS...…..(and spelling class..)

 

As usual the absence of subject matter knowledge is all too common amongst Incels who don't have a clue that a missed period is one of the first signs of pregnancy. If they devoted the time and energy they waste on the internet to learning how to communicate with the opposite sex they might obtain first hand knowledge of these things. However given that they appear to be challenged when it comes to learning that is probably way to much to expect.

 

Yeah getting pregnant to avoid it then aborting and starting again

 

FoxHastings said: ↑



Right on schedule , an Anti-Choicer finds he has no argument or facts to back up anything they've posted and has to go into insults and goofiness....right on schedule...

Sackeshi: "" using then to avoid periods for your convenience""


I wonder how he can explain how having an abortion is used to AVOID periods....WHAT?


UH MILLENNIAL! HEY IT'S PREGNANT WOMEN WHO DON"T HAVE PERIODS ….NOT WOMEN WHO ABORT !!!!


OMGAWD MILLENNIALS!!! MISSED THAT BIOLOGY CLASS...…..(and spelling class..)

Oh, for GAWD's sake....women do NOT get pregnant to avoid their periods.....


You are just flailing desperately....HILARIOUS!!!!


Here's YOUR EXACT WORDS: """Probably pointless since you apparently went for the world record for most abortions, using then to avoid periods for your convenience."""

It states that women use abortion to avoid their periods....



Maybe if you had something besides insults you wouldn't be posting such silly things ????

 

You didn't answer the first part about responsibility.

If it's not done out of nessesity then it's out of selfish reasoning. Just go to the mall and stop by the clinic on your way to the restaurant with your friends.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑



Right on schedule , an Anti-Choicer finds he has no argument or facts to back up anything they've posted and has to go into insults and goofiness....right on schedule...

Sackeshi: "" using then to avoid periods for your convenience""


I wonder how he can explain how having an abortion is used to AVOID periods....WHAT?


UH MILLENNIAL! HEY IT'S PREGNANT WOMEN WHO DON"T HAVE PERIODS ….NOT WOMEN WHO ABORT !!!!


OMGAWD MILLENNIALS!!! MISSED THAT BIOLOGY CLASS...…..(and spelling class..)





Oh, for GAWD's sake....women do NOT get pregnant to avoid their periods.....


You are just flailing desperately....HILARIOUS!!!!


Here's YOUR EXACT WORDS: """Probably pointless since you apparently went for the world record for most abortions, using then to avoid periods for your convenience."""

It states that women use abortion to avoid their periods....



Maybe if you had something besides insults you wouldn't be posting such silly things ????

No, I was too busy laughing at someone who thinks women have abortions to avoid their periods !!!!

It's spelled "necessity"


And again, oh person who thinks women who abort don't have periods, OF COURSE abortions are done for convenience....

Now tell me where that's against the law?

What has that got to do with anything??? Why are you rambling??

 

1) I never even came close to saying the scientific community does not consider the fetus to be an organism - and calling a spade a spade is not insulting someone - it is not my fault you do not like what you seen in the mirror. That you do not understand what the Scientific community thinks is clear from your posts.

2) It is not up to me to prove your claim for you - you were the one that claimed the zygote is an organism while the heart cell is not You gave zero support for that claim and have show no scientific understanding of the subject matter. You claim "scientific community" yet give no science.

The idea that entire scientific community is in agreement on this issue is simply false.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(09)01910-1.pdf

I have not stated that either a zygote or a cell is or is not an organism. What I have stated is that it depends on the definition one uses.

You have not given one definition of organism - never mind shown an understanding of the different definitions that exist or the complexity of the topic. You have not shown any understanding that this is as much as a Philosophical question as it is a Scientific one.

One basic biological definition of "organism" is - An organism refers to any individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism

Every human cell is an individual living thing that can react to stimuli - reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. By this definition both the zygote and a human heart cell are organisms.


3) Even if one assumes the zygote is an organism and a heart cell is not - this does prove your claim that this organism is a living human.

What kind of organism is it ? A human reproduces sexually - A zygote reproduces asexually ?

According to the domain science that classifies organism (Taxonomy) - the science that defines what a Homo sapiens is - the Zygote is not even close to a Homo sapiens.

 

The zygote might create a human. This is true. So what ? A bricklayer is not a brick building.

Since you do not have an alternate argument - perhaps you should try harder to understand what the main argument is.

 

You are very good at making long posts, I will give you that.

So, for the sake of simplicity, let me ask you a question: do you agree that the zygote is an organism?

 

Aww, was it too long for you to read? Here , I'll help:

From his post: ""One basic biological definition of "organism" is - An organism refers to any individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism

Every human cell is an individual living thing that can react to stimuli - reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. By this definition both the zygote and a human heart cell are organisms.""""


See, reading actually can be a good thing....you may even LEARN something from it....

 

Like I said, I am not the one who determined that the zygote is an organism. It's what I learned in school years ago. If either you or Giftedone have a problem with it, take it up with someone other than me.

If you want me to continue talking to you, I would suggest that you act reasonably civil.

 

Your inability to comprehend more than a sound bite speaks to your inability to understand this issue in general.

In addition - your question is answered directly in the post you are responding to. (it depends on the definition)

One basic biological definition of "organism" is - An organism refers to any individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism

On the basis of the above definition - both the zygote and the heart cell are organisms.

 

Then this definition must be lacking. Because when I was in school (yes I went a uni), I learned that the heart cell was a cell, not an organism.

I don't get why you are so hung up on this whole issue anyway. It's not that difficult to see that the zygote is classified as an organism but not the heart cell. Do you really have such a huge problem telling apart what qualifies as an organism and what qualifies as a cell?

 

Alright, it has the POTENTIAL to produce a human.

Do we kill bricklayers as well as zygotes? That's a silly analogy and one which I wouldn't have expected from someone of your intelligence.

My alternative argument is in my last reply which you quoted. "All that really matters is that the zygote will produce a human and other cells will not." Or that can be qualified by saying it has the POTENTIAL to produce a human.