More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated

[glassjester]

No, one is a bunch of cells and the other is...a bunch of cells

One is a bunch of living human cells, that have the ability to continue to grow and develop through every stage of human development.

The other is a bunch of dead human cells, that have no ability to do anything.


What's your point, anyway?

 

[ok doser]

Still not smart enough to read and understand the words "for example"

yes, and the example you gave is insufficient for the task

do you have additional examples?

 

[ok doser]

One is a bunch of living human cells, that have the ability to continue to grow and develop through every stage of human development.

The other is a bunch of dead human cells, that have no ability to do anything.


What's your point, anyway?

his point appears to be to troll long enough for the opportunity to shout "racist" to arise :idunno:

 

[glassjester]

his point appears to be to troll long enough for the opportunity to shout "racist" to arise :idunno:

Is it wrong to shout "racist" in a crowded movie theater?

 

[ok doser]

only if it's full of liberals


if it's full of libs, they'll stampede in a panic

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Why are you allowed?

Childish response. I would expect nothing less from you.

 

[glassjester]

only if it's full of liberals


if it's full of libs, they'll stampede in a panic

:chuckle:

Do you think Lefty's eat balut?

There's no difference between that, and an unfertilized egg, right?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

No, one is a bunch of cells and the other is...a bunch of cells

Very insightful. :chuckle:

 

[Crucible]

A fetus has nothing in common with a living soul.

A living soul is birthed, thinking and feeling, seeing and breathing- a soul is not living until it's vessel is complete enough to experience life.

These are fundamentals things which many pro-lifers just flat out reject. They won't acknowledge it, they will simply produce a fiction and hope that it outdoes bald fact lain:

 

[glassjester]

A fetus has nothing in common with a living soul.

A living soul is birthed, thinking and feeling, seeing and breathing- a soul is not living until it's vessel is complete enough to experience life.

These are fundamentals things which many pro-lifers just flat out reject. They won't acknowledge it, they will simply produce a fiction and hope that it outdoes bald fact lain:

Hello Crucible.

A while back, John W quoted the first chapter of Luke's Gospel, in which Elizabeth's unborn baby jumped in her womb.

Have you addressed this?

 

[Crucible]

Hello Crucible.

A while back, John W quoted the first chapter of Luke's Gospel, in which Elizabeth's unborn baby jumped in her womb.

Have you addressed this?

A poeticized account of a fetus moving in the womb?

Sure.
It's exactly what it is.

The most one can gain from it is simply that God stirred the womb to assure Elizabeth.
In Exodus, a fetus is property, and the concern for life is with the women- it's a flat out contradiction to YOU ALL, altogether, which you undoubtedly refuse to accept the context of.

You as a Catholic have no problem with the fact that it took Pope Sixtus to deem it murder because the Bible just doesn't show it- he bulled right over everyone with it. But these so called Protestants ought to take issue, because their bias is not warranted by classical Judeo-Christian beliefs

 

[john w]

I And I don't think that a pregnant woman should have to care for a child that she neither wants nor has the means to care for

So, if she finds it inconvenient,or for economic reasons, or if it puts a mental/physical burden on her, she can kill?

Economic reasons was used to justify slavery.There are plenty of people I/others deem as "inconvenient," a burden, "unwanted"-can we kill them? Can we kill those that are "hobos," on the street, "unwanted?"

You decide that?

The only issue-human rights-is "it" human?

 

[glassjester]

he bulled right over everyone with it.

Nice papal pun there, man. :chuckle:

 

[john w]

And completely literally, you are correct. But we both know that a fetus doesn't behave like a human until way down the developmental road.

A five year-old girl can’t bear children, until later, because her reproductive system is less developed than a fourteen year-old girl. So, does that disqualify her from personhood?

 

[glassjester]

A five year-old girl can’t bear children, until later, because her reproductive system is less developed than a fourteen year-old girl. So, does that disqualify her from personhood?

Why not go all the way with this?

A newborn doesn't act like a 35 year old.
Should we have the right to kill newborns?

Newborns are, after all, extremely inconvenient.

 

[glassjester]

Caring for a newborn is probably a lot more inconvenient than being pregnant.
Why not kill them instead?

 

[john w]

Caring for a newborn is probably a lot more inconvenient than being pregnant.
Why not kill them instead?

And a 3 year old little one, for eg. is probably more expensive than a baby, and the mother will save more money killing the little one than the unborn child.

 

[glassjester]

And a 3 year old little one, for eg. is probably more expensive than a baby, and the mother will save more money killing the little one than the unborn child.

But the Leftists would gladly "force" a woman to keep feeding her 3-year-old. Isn't that a trespass against the mother's bodily autonomy?

What if mommy wants her body to go to Aruba for a month?
Would the Leftist "force" the mother to keep her body at home and care for her toddler?

It's her body, isn't it her choice what she does with her body?

 

[john w]

But the Leftists would gladly "force" a woman to keep feeding her 3-year-old. Isn't that a trespass against the mother's bodily autonomy?

What if mommy wants her body to go to Aruba for a month?
Would the Leftist "force" the mother to keep her body at home and care for her toddler?

It's her body, isn't it her choice what she does with her body?

When a dentist puts his hand in her mouth.....

 

[Greg Jennings]

1.
https://www.scionofzion.com/kjvtransqual.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/The King James Bible/Translators/translators.htm

I very clearly was talking about the authors of the Bible. Unless you think God picked up a pen and write it himself?

You/most can't touch them IQ/qualifications wise.

In terms of translating, you're 100% right. I don't have a clue what I'm doing. But I also never said that I did.

2.Show me anything backing your words that you have a super high IQ.

You can't, of course.

I never said anything of the sort. Just another lie from you

3. Slower-the LORD God is the author of the book-He has a very high IQ, droid.
Sit.

And your proof is?

No, it does not-you made that up.

The Bible doesn't say that Lot's wife transformed into a pillar of salt?

You, and other Christ rejecting, scripture rejecting drones, have tried to correct the book for years, and have failed, and cannot do it.

One example of how you are wrong: there is no record of the Jews being in Egypt at the time of Exodus. Not archaeologically or in census data. That doesn't make the Bible look very infallible.

Show us your infallible source authority, for correcting any errors in the book.

Name it._

I don't have one. I follow the objective opinions of experts in their respective fields. I don't consult a 4000 year old manuscript for answers to the problems of today.