Is a reversal of Roe v Wade decision next?

Kassiopeija said:
The argument "this is my body" is unscientific crap when the fetus right away has its own unique genetic code that is separated from the mother by several barriers and it can be shown it's rather the fetus stimulating the womb via hormones to nurture it (akin to a parasitic relationship) and not that romantic self-styled womanistic fantasy of me, myself and I (give life) also discriminizing the important role of the man as absolutely essential genetic information contributor.
I mean seriously since when do democrats deny a scientific truths and what kind of woman feel the need to get pregnant when they don't really want it when preservation is there for 2 nickels?
Rights, rights, rights ego ego ego seriously some of the human rights need to be revamped as a view that says that a human life begins at birth is a relict of the cavestone ages!
Click to expand...
At the same time, suggesting that a zygote (which possesses that same code) is a human life is ridiculous. It is the sort of argument that always, always conceals religion. I desire freedom from religion.

Also, condoms in US are more like a buck a pop.
 
Last edited:
Kassiopeija said:
The argument "this is my body" is unscientific crap when the fetus right away has its own unique genetic code that is separated from the mother by several barriers and it can be shown it's rather the fetus stimulating the womb via hormones to nurture it (akin to a parasitic relationship) and not that romantic self-styled womanistic fantasy of me, myself and I (give life) also discriminizing the important role of the man as absolutely essential genetic information contributor.
I mean seriously since when do democrats deny a scientific truths and what kind of woman feel the need to get pregnant when they don't really want it when preservation is there for 2 nickels?
Rights, rights, rights ego ego ego seriously some of the human rights need to be revamped as a view that says that a human life begins at birth is a relict of the cavestone ages!
Click to expand...
Would your opinion change if you became pregnant from rape?
 
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i'm not sure what her(?) opinion is to begin with, i can't actually make sense of her last post. pro life generally, but the rest is quite confusing to me...
Click to expand...
The main problem I have is that a “scientific truth”, which I do not contest, leads to a compelling derivation of a moral principle. This I vigorously contest. I consider that to be a central fallacy.
 
This will be a nitpick from when I taught.
“Scientific truth” is a bit if an oxymoron. Every scientific hypothesis, law and theory is at best “without a disproof”. So even our most reliable scientific principles are not truth, but “the way things very likely are”.

You know who deals in (questionable) truth? Priests.
 
We apparently can't even feed the babies that are already here. Formula shortage or something. My wife fed are kid from her luscious tits. But some women don't have luscious tits. And those kids need formula. Wanna born a bunch of babies they can't even feed.
 
Kassiopeija said:
The argument "this is my body" is unscientific crap when the fetus right away has its own unique genetic code that is separated from the mother by several barriers and it can be shown it's rather the fetus stimulating the womb via hormones to nurture it (akin to a parasitic relationship) and not that romantic self-styled womanistic fantasy of me, myself and I (give life) also discriminizing the important role of the man as absolutely essential genetic information contributor.
I mean seriously since when do democrats deny a scientific truths and what kind of woman feel the need to get pregnant when they don't really want it when preservation is there for 2 nickels?
Rights, rights, rights ego ego ego seriously some of the human rights need to be revamped as a view that says that a human life begins at birth is a relict of the cavestone ages!
Click to expand...

What you want to believe is up to you.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.; For every other woman, it's their body and their choice. Fuck your beliefs.
 
How can you be in such blatant denial of the truth? Science does not exist so you can just pick what you emotionally favour... The political arbitrarist is the crutch of the world :???:
 
Kassiopeija said:
How can you be in such blatant denial of the truth? Science does not exist so you can just pick what you emotionally favour... The political arbitrarist is the crutch of the world :???:
Click to expand...
Define truth? You are making a moral argument founded on religious doctrine and are making moral judgements. Science does not answer moral questions, but it can inform them. It comes down to imposing your will on another for a profoundly life altering decision that is their business alone. To a point, since no freedom is absolute. However the closer to term the more social concern and possibly law concerning late stage pregnancy after the third trimester, that is not so much morality as humanity and pragmatism. It's up to society though and not me and over 80% in Americas favor a woman's right to choose.

In America women are forced to give birth even after rape or incest and they pay the costs, which can be thousands of dollars, just for the birth, not counting prenatal care. There no mention of the roles or responsibilities of men in these laws, they just beat up on girls. The states that do this have cut social and health services to the bone, it has nothing to do with abortion really, it is an instrument of the culture wars, most who claim to be Christians are not or don't know the first thing about Christianity.
 
Kassiopeija said:
How can you be in such blatant denial of the truth? Science does not exist so you can just pick what you emotionally favour... The political arbitrarist is the crutch of the world :???:
Click to expand...
again with science and truth. At what age is a conceptus a person? Science does not know. Only religion does, and even then it simply says without actually knowing.
 
Kassiopeija said:
How can you be in such blatant denial of the truth? Science does not exist so you can just pick what you emotionally favour... The political arbitrarist is the crutch of the world :???:
Click to expand...
You are confusing science with belief.

A woman's body is hers to decide how to treat. A fertilized egg does not change that.
 
Last edited:
I think these morons are reading the tea leaves wrong and it might cost them dearly in November, even in unexpected places. Their tune might change as panic sets in, right now they are controlled by religious fanatics during primary season.

This ain't the Bible belt, but they are part of the brainwashed belt.
1652637674351.png
 
cannabineer said:
The main problem I have is that a “scientific truth”, which I do not contest, leads to a compelling derivation of a moral principle. This I vigorously contest. I consider that to be a central fallacy.
Click to expand...

A religious zealot citing science as a basis for extreme authoritarian control over a person's life. That's a laugh. Or would be if it were a fiction novel.
 
tenor.gif
 
lulz. Just poking around the site, Miss K is apparently prone to forming false beliefs, preaching them as facts and not making any friends.

Light cycles for reducing mid-day heat

It is the hottest time of year where I live and my trees that have been flowering for 6 weeks are getting as hot as 32C/89.6F during the mid-day heat, even inside with my aircon switched to full power. To combat the heat, I am thinking of switching the light cycle to be at night and dark cycle...
www.rollitup.org

"Don't listen to @Kassiopeija. She talk alot of theoretical nonsense, doesn't even grow or smoke weed but somehow still think she knows what she's talking about. 32C is not to bad but anything close to 45C will totally torch a plant to bits."

A good theory is useful even if its not true. Take Newton's theory of gravitation. "any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them." It is useful because mathematical models based upon Newtonian theory/law of gravitation are fair predictors of what will happen under certain circumstances. It is not true, particles of matter are not attracted to each other but the theory is useful within certain circumstances.

On the other hand, Miss K's theory: "the fetus right away has its own unique genetic code that is separated from the mother by several barriers and it can be shown it's rather the fetus stimulating the womb via hormones to nurture it (akin to a parasitic relationship)" Her theory basically says that the womb is part of the fetus not the woman. This is not true but that's OK if it were useful. She uses this theory to conclude that a woman does not have the right to decide whether or not carry that fetus to term.

The above is an example of a bad theory because it does not justify her conclusion. One does not follow the other. She is jumping to a conclusion, not making one. That a fertilized egg implanted onto a woman's womb and stimulated the woman's body to grow the necessary structures to care and feed a developing zygote does not mean a woman must take the risks to her health and well-being inherent in a full term pregnancy.

In both the examples given above, Miss K demonstrates what happens when a person becomes unhinged from reality. Seems that Miss K doesn't differentiate between the real world and what goes on in that little head of hers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top