Why Can't the Pro-Abortionists be Honest?

[LuvRPgrl]

I support mandatory blood testing IF, there is probable cause, i.e. erratic driving, smell of alcohol, failed sobriety test, and the suspect then refuses to comply with a breath test to establish proof of DUI. Your contention that a sober person is going to meet all those requirements is PURE BULLSHIT FANTASY! A sober person will comply with the breath test.



.

A SOBER PERSON WILL COMPLY WITH THE BREATH TEST? jThat is not 100% accurate.
If it were, then by simple deduction, we can conclude that all those tested are drunk the cops will have a 100% failed on the test, rate.
Only problem is that in the entire history of EVERYTHING, never has a test been conducted to find guilty people that had a 100% sucess/fail rate.

\Plus, your pov says "DO what we are demanding", even though you have a constitutional right to NOT do it, "or you are guilty.

[Missileman]

Why? What changes that makes killing you in cold blood for my own convenience go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?




So you can't name anything that changes at the end of the first trimester? You're admitting your entire position is bullshit and that you are wholly incapable of defending it?

Not at all...my position is just as valid as yours, you just happen to disagree with it. Your insistence that there must be some marker to signify the beginning of the 2nd trimester in order to draw a line at the first trimester is YOUR position...I'm not bound by it. I find your position that a zygote is a human being to be bullshit, it takes more than a few cells to comprise a human being.

[Missileman]

A SOBER PERSON WILL COMPLY WITH THE BREATH TEST? jThat is not 100% accurate.
If it were, then by simple deduction, we can conclude that all those tested are drunk the cops will have a 100% failed on the test, rate.
Only problem is that in the entire history of EVERYTHING, never has a test been conducted to find guilty people that had a 100% sucess/fail rate.

\Plus, your pov says "DO what we are demanding", even though you have a constitutional right to NOT do it, "or you are guilty.

The cops don't start with the breath test. They don't administer a breath test to everyone they pull over. FYI, a judge can order the same exact blood test, even if the person doesn't want one. Letting the cops get one in a timely manner, based on probable cause, will result in a more accurate assessment of the BAC of the drunk driver at the time of arrest. Your premise that a person has the constitutional right to refuse a blood test is WRONG!

[LuvRPgrl]

The cops don't start with the breath test. They don't administer a breath test to everyone they pull over. FYI, a judge can order the same exact blood test, even if the person doesn't want one. Letting the cops get one in a timely manner, based on probable cause, will result in a more accurate assessment of the BAC of the drunk driver at the time of arrest. Your premise that a person has the constitutional right to refuse a blood test is WRONG!

Unless there are clear indications that would cause the cops to suspect the driver of drunk driving, then yes, you have a constitutional right to refuse a blood test.

[Missileman]

Unless there are clear indications that would cause the cops to suspect the driver of drunk driving, then yes, you have a constitutional right to refuse a blood test.

What exactly other than that have you hallucinated we've been talking about.

[LuvRPgrl]

This statement makes you appear to be even less of a human being than you already allege to be.
What you are saying is that any condition that makes a woman pregnant needs to be accepted without challenge. You are pregnant, your tough luck. Live with it.

The religious extremists that I know of care ZERO about what happens to a baby after it is born. Their only demand is that it is carried to term and delivered.
If the newborn is then thrown in a dumpster or left to rot in a landfill, they could care less. If the child is abused and beaten to death, they don't care.
Death after birth is always preferable to death in the womb. Right?
Such sick people you are.

REALLY?? U know people like that? I dont, not one. I feel sorry for you.

[LuvRPgrl]

.0

To clarify further the difference between the supposed contradiction you accuse me of, one statement clearly applies to a woman who might seek an abortion, the other applies to doctors who perform them. As I said, if you can't see the difference and that they aren't contradictory, then you're a moron.

Funny, I cant find a single post where you state anything about how your posistion of making an abortion illegal would be enforced.
HOwever, you did make a post stating circumstances under which you would be willing to force a mother to birth, when Revelerts asked you if you agree with him.

Now show me where any of us said we support strapping women down and ......

If you prevent doctors from performing abortions, then you are FORCING women into one of two choices, backalley abortion or go full term. So, you are the only one here who said they support forcing a woman to full term.

Bringing up "strapping women down" is completely irrelevant, not only did no one say any such thing, but nobody here even would consider it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Before any argument can take place, we'll have to define human being.

AND THEN YOU LAUNCH INTO A FULL SCALE ARGUEMENT WITHOUT EVER DEFINING HUMAN BEING, OR EVEN ATTEMPTING TO. To name something that isnt human is not attempting to define what it is.

[fj1200]

Then you've abandoned your entire premise.

That was fast.

Nope, your comprehension still sucks.

[Missileman]

.0


Funny, I cant find a single post where you state anything about how your posistion of making an abortion illegal would be enforced.

You fucking idiot...it would be enforced in the same manner as the total ban on abortion that you advocate.

HOwever, you did make a post stating circumstances under which you would be willing to force a mother to birth, when Revelerts asked you if you agree with him.

Use the quote function. You still suck at (paraphrasing).

Now show me where any of us said we support strapping women down and ......


If you prevent doctors from performing abortions, then you are FORCING women into one of two choices, backalley abortion or go full term. So, you are the only one here who said they support forcing a woman to full term.

Bringing up "strapping women down" is completely irrelevant, not only did no one say any such thing, but nobody here even would consider it.

Let me get this straight...YOU haven't been arguing against legal abortion for the entire thread? Really?

[Missileman]

AND THEN YOU LAUNCH INTO A FULL SCALE ARGUEMENT WITHOUT EVER DEFINING HUMAN BEING, OR EVEN ATTEMPTING TO. To name something that isnt human is not attempting to define what it is.

JT threw up dictionary definitions of human being. When I attempted to elicit the things that are required to actually have a human being, you and JT turned into a couple of quahogs. I'm willing to reopen that debate whenever you are.

[LuvRPgrl]

You fucking idiot...it would be enforced in the same manner as the total ban on abortion that you advocate.




Use the quote function. You still suck at (paraphrasing).

.

.




Let me get this straight...YOU haven't been arguing against legal abortion for the entire thread? Really?

and yet still you havent answered any of the questions

MM states: JT threw up dictionary definitions of human being. When I attempted to elicit the things that are required to actually have a human being, you and JT turned into a couple of quahogs. I'm willing to reopen that debate whenever you are

Explaining why you did what you earlier said COULDN'T be done, doesn't change the fact that you launched into a debate without defining "human being", which U claimed would HAVE to be done before arguing the topic.

[LuvRPgrl]

JT threw up dictionary definitions of human being. When I attempted to elicit the things that are required to actually have a human being, you and JT turned into a couple of quahogs. I'm willing to reopen that debate whenever you are.

Well now, this is interesting. You are willing to re open the conversation which you said HAS to be answered before the debate can go on.

So, R U defining what a human being is, and when that act occurs , is very important or not?

[Missileman]

Well now, this is interesting. You are willing to re open the conversation which you said HAS to be answered before the debate can go on.

So, R U defining what a human being is, and when that act occurs , is very important or not?

Just for grins, let's give this a try. I say it takes more than a clump of cells to comprise a human being. For instance, IMO, you can't have a human being without a functional brain. Agree or disagree, and why?

[revelarts]

Just for grins, let's give this a try. I say it takes more than a clump of cells to comprise a human being. For instance, IMO, you can't have a human being without a functional brain. Agree or disagree, and why?

And I mention this before "functional" is in the eye of the beholder. who draws the line forthat one?

But to directly answer your question. That particular clump of cells in that moment is in the process of growing a brain, heart, arms, legs all of the parts that make a human. It is at that moment a living growing human being.
The only thing that will stop it's growth is some process of nature or a another human being killing it.