13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 7/15/14 04:56 PM, SnakyDragon wrote:
Speaking of which, why aren't male contraceptives not being funded?? All of these work on women, so it's the women who have to pay for this crap! What the bloody hell?!
So...
If I'm not being funded for condoms, then I'm not paying for it?
This Hobby Lobby is mostly an excuse for corporations to keep their money under false pretenses.
False pretenses by Government regulation.
At 7/7/14 12:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
No you're not. If you end having a big illness how will you pay?
I don't have a big illness, not am I projected to have one.
And it's called paying your hospital directly. Not only does it dramatically cut costs, but they work with payments.
Out of pocket? Are you a millionaire? I don't think so.
No, I'm not.
But then again, these things wouldn't cost so much if people didn't over utilize insurance and rely on 3rd parties to pay out.
When you defult on your payment because you were "too cool for school" to buy health insurance, EVERYONE else pays higher base costs to cover your default.
So you're going to declare me "guilty" based on something that MIGHT happen?
Well in that case, why don't we lock up all the troubled children so we prevent future murders... you know... Just in case.
Nope. My money gets paid out of my insurance pool, and the providers get paid enough so that they do no have to raise costs for others to cover it, like they would when you default.
Except that very method is what allows over utilization, which results in more (and not needed) medical testing (pushing costs higher), taking more money out of the pool (pushing costs higher), and not negotiating prices (pushes costs higher).
You're engaging in the very activity that allows that. And it's been proven.
But here you are, forcing me to become a permanent customer to Corporations, all based on something that "MIGHT" happen... just so YOU can benefit.
So selfish.
Maybe next time you should read an entire post before ommenting.
But that's what you're saying.
You have a problem. So because I MIGHT have a problem later, you're going to declare me guilty based on some loosely linked, arbitrary circumstances and FORCE me to a Corporate pawn...
Just so YOU don't have to pay for YOUR problems.
I would hae not been able to pay thus forcing hospitals to care for me pro bono. In order to pay for this they would have to raise the prices for everyone else.
Then explain something to me.
Now that insurance is covered by people's jobs.
And more the Government is regulating it.
And more people are being covered for more things (most of which they don't need)...
Why have costs only ever rapidly skyrocketted?
Every single one of your predictions has been wrong for well over the last 70 years.
Yeah, and that's why most intelligent people know that the ACA is a wholly insufficient response to the problem, and that the only real fix is single payer.
"Pay for my shit"
Oh, and I have a question for you.
Since 60% of our healthcare spending is Government, and that is primarily taken up by Medicare/Medicaid, and it only somehow covers a mere fraction of what the private market covers...
Why do you think that'll make it better?
Oh right... better for you... because you'll have more people to dump your problems on!
Lower the price? From 200,000 to 150,000? Can you pay for that? Or would you default and expect the rest of us to pay. My guess is on the latter.
More like $100,000.
But think about it.
$500 health insurance a month for 30 years = $180,000
So I have two choices.
Pay $500 a month for health insurance (and still have to pay co-pays, along with other costs) and still come up 20G short.
Or save $500 a month for myself have have $80G left over.
Hopsitals get pad more than enough from both insurance and medicare. What hospitals don't get paid for are the uninsured.
Then why wasn't this happening 50 years ago?
Why is it only happening after people like you demanded all these extra little bells and whistles thinking they'd be free?
That's exactly what you're setting yourself up to do. By not paying into the insurance pool you're either setting yourself up to not py AT ALL, or to enter an insurance pool last minute and leech off of the pool instead of paying in your whole life.
That's exactly what I'm planning to do.
Thanks to you believing I should be a Corporate patient, under the ACA for a 6 month period every year, I can't be denied a pre-existing condition.
And since I know my medical history and how it progresses: I fully plan to go without health insurance all my life, saving up all that money.
Then when I get sick, I'll just pick up health insurance during that 6 month period during the open exchange where I can't be denied.
So thanks for paying.
It's my way of saying "fuck you" to all the people who thought they could force me to be a permanent corporate customer to line their pockets.
You thought you could steal from me, so now I'm going to steal from you.
Likewise to you. You are trying so hard to buck the idea that others will pay for you that you're going to end up costing everyone a hell of a lot more.
Once again.
Explain how that makes any sense today.
Why is it that health care costs were extremely low only until people like you demanded all these extras thinking they'd be "free"?
EVERYONE will use th medical system. Over 90% will use it for a very expensive stay.
Which I've done before, and paid for... by myself... without insurance.
You're welcome.
Not really. Not everyone uses Walmart. The ability to recieve what WalMart sells is also not a social need.
Groceries aren't a social need?
Clothes aren't a social need?
Health insurances exists because medical costs can get pathetically expensive extremey quick.
And I thank your existence for making it ever more expensive!
Very few people have the sitting around money needed to be able to cover such costs.
Once again... My fault... how?
What smoker analogy?
It was in reference to the contraception mandate, forcing coverage not only on insurers and businesses, but also on private individuals.
Once again: If I were an avid smoker, and you weren't. What would you think if I demanded health insurance coverage for nicotine patches. Then I demanded that you, a non-smoker, should be forced to also get coverage (and pay a higher premium) for nicotine patches, all so I wouldn't have to pay as much?
Now, I wouldn't compare the contraception mandate or my example to what you have. After all, your illness, as you say, is a mystery, and in all likelihood wasn't your fault.
My problem with the contraception mandate, is that it's forcing people who aren't engaging in risky activity to cover those who are.
At 7/7/14 01:32 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
No, the decision was CLEARLY based on whether or not you could force a company to provide coverage for something that violated their religious beliefs.
And as I said:
I know that...
But... I don't give a shit about that argument.
It was CLEARLY based on that because that is what the plaintiffs presented their case as being all about. You can't take the stance that religion can be separated from the case when the plaintiffs very clearly stood on religion as the whole genesis of the complaint.
I can for myself.
Just because a liberal presents idiotic arguments against water-boarding like "It brings us down to their level", it doesn't negate the fact that water-boarding is torture and is a stupid policy to pursue.
Well, if someone objects to Viagra on religious grounds you might (it'd be a bit murkier though I'd imagine).
I'm saying that arguing based on religious grounds is stupid.
But that doesn't matter. No one should be forced to get coverage to pay for your VOLUNTARY, non-medically neccessary life style choices.
Either you believe that your personal life is no one else's business (like I do), or you don't.
If you believe that people should be forced to pay for you life choices, then don't bullshit people about how "it's none of their business."
At 7/4/14 04:52 PM, Warforger wrote:
No you're saying I support something literally no one is supporting.
At 7/4/14 04:52 PM, Warforger wrote:
"They should be, in the case of health insurance."
At 7/4/14 12:40 PM, Warforger wrote:
And I was being sarcastic.
You were being sarcastic to make a point.
Then proceeded to eventually use it in a serious way.
Did you even read what the decision was about? This decision is solely based on religion because it grants employers the ability to deny coverage for Birth Control on RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. They can't say "I don't want my employee's havin' sex so no Birth Control".
Right... but I don't care about that.
Just because they're arguing it over a religious basis doesn't make any less bullshit to demand other people pay for your strictly voluntary, non-medically necessary life style.
So I'm confused, you think because insurance pays for Birth Control means that everyone gets Birth Control now? If so then my statement completely addresses your question, after all some people get arthritis medication covered on their insurance plan therefore, using your logic, everyone gets arthritis medication.
People who do not have arthritis or who do not want coverage for it should not be forced to get coverage for it.
Why is this difficult to comprehend?
Why should people like my mother be forced to get coverage for maternity care despite not being able to have any more children?
Why should she be forced to get coverage for contraception when she has no use for it?
Except the employer is not the insurance company.
I would say for any industry.
If any industry or person does not want to pay for your personal life choices, they shouldn't be forced to.
That's what insurance is. You pay into a giant pool of money which certain people then pull from because they themselves can't pay for coverage. And no, this is not dumping the cost on anyone else.
It is when they're forced to get coverage even when they don't want it.
Explain to me why, if you are in charge of your own life as a living, autonomous individual who owns your own body... why should you be forced to buy insurance against your free choice?
Sounds like economic fascism.
"People like you" lol. No this is a completely ridiculous statement.
You support it.
Wow, might as well kill yourself then.
lol, see? You're a horrible person. Just like me.
At 7/4/14 11:35 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Not, it's because the notion of letting for profit enterprises control a social program only results in benefits for the few at the expense of the many.
You mean like how you forced my parents to pay more for coverage they can't use for the benefit of morons too cheap and lazy to pay $20 a month for themselves?
Oh, the irony.
Allow me to explain.And my family is the EXACT reason why your gamble makes you a leech. No better than a welfare queen.
I know my own families medical history. I know what is likely and very unlikely to happen and at what age of my life it will happen.
Really?
Because what I'm doing is pushing down health care costs by not pointlessly taking money out of the pile that would go to covering your cancer and diabetes.
You're the one leaching off me.
You and your family.
My family has a history of cancer and diabetes.
So because you and your family have a problem that I had nothing to do with, that gives you the right to push your problems on me?
But guess what happened when I turned 20 and what happened when I turned 26? I got a kidney problem. Those first 5 years I put 2 weeks of hospital stay, 50 doctor visits, 6 doses of chemo, and tons of prescriptions on the insurance. Had I tried your leechy plan, YOU would have paid for it.
How would I have paid for it?
Insurance prices today are nothing more than a scam.
Much better to save the hundreds or potentially over a thousand dollars a month up for years when I have no problems, then negotiating directly about the bill with the hospital to lower the price when problems arise.
When I was 26, my kidneys fully failed. since that time I have racked up a base bill of over $500,000 in medical care. Had I tried your plan, you would have paid for all of it, not just about 15% of it.
If you and everyone else would've tried my plan, your bill wouldn't be over $500,000. The only reason it's that high is because people rely too much on insurance and have it cover things they don't need while they over-utilize it. It also doesn't help when hospitals get screwed over on partial payments from insurance companies and medicare which further drive prices.
But regardless, I still like how you've convinced yourself that just because you have problems, that it mean you can shift that burden on to innocent people who had nothing to do with it.
So we get to what this is all really about: That it's not about fairness or equality, but about you wanting other people to pay for your problems.
You want to know what my family does NOT have a history of? Kidney problems.
It came from your genes regardless.
So how about blaming your parents instead of everyone else?
I am living proof that you cannot predict your medical future, and to try and do so is playing loose with everyone else's money.
Ah yes, in this strange world where my inaction and not harming you or doing anything to you in any way is somehow construed through a series of loosely linked events that results your harm.
It'd be like if Walmart said that my refusal to shop at their store resulted in their having less profit, therefore they could consider my not shopping there to be "commerce" and could thereby have Government force me to shop there because they regulate interstate commerce.
I wonder if we should then start blaming the great grandparents for the problems their great grandchildren do to others.
I still have yet to hear you address how 10 years of daily condoms is cheaper than one year of baby on medicaid.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't support either.
Although, you've still not addressed my smoker analogy.
Would you support that, or not?
At 7/3/14 08:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
That's exatly what the ACA meant to do accross to the board.
I like how you just rationalized forcing people against their free choice as living, autonomous individuals to buy coverage from corporations (thereby enriching corporations) based on some arbitrary, subjective societal good.
You know, nevermind the fact that insurance premiums have still only increased...
Why?
Well let me ask you this, because apparently this thought never seemed to occur to you: If it were true that these forced coverages would cause insurance premiums to go down: Then why were these for-profit corporations doing it in the first place?
Oh... right.
Because that's all a bunch of bullshit.
The more payers you have for insurance the less it costs out of pocket for a procedure and for preventative medicine. The increased access to preventative medicine drives down the cost of ALL healthcare as it lowers the rate of catasrophic costs and results in a lower occurrence of chronic illnesses.
No... it doesn't. And that's been proven time and time again.
You want to know why?
Allow me to explain.
I know my own families medical history. I know what is likely and very unlikely to happen and at what age of my life it will happen.
Based on my family's medical history, going to see a doctor for annual check-ups is worthless until I reach well into my 60's. Why? Because any of the health problems in my family do not occur until then. Meaning any health check-ups will merely result in nothing being found until that late age.
So when/if I were to constantly go into these check ups using insurance to pay for the meager annual check up cost, that money gets taken out of the insurance pool that would've gone to actual medical needs.
It is then made up by higher premiums (since so many people pointlessly use insurance for these annual check ups).
So let me ask you again, since you didn't address my previous question:
Would you hold the same position for getting coverage for a smoker?
What would you think if a smoker demanded insurance coverage for Nicotine patches? All while also demanding to pay the same insurance premiums as everyone else by forcing everyone else (including non-smokers) to get coverage for it?
I'm assuming you would be against this since you refused to respond to it, despite my being able to use the exact same arguments you did in its favor.
At 7/3/14 09:46 PM, Warforger wrote:
Well no to me Birth Control isn't something I get riled up about. You were telling me that I should protest men getting viagra on insurance and I was saying we.
You're the one who brought up protesting.
At 7/3/14 06:23 AM, You wrote
"Exactly, we should protest to kick Viagra..."
Right and that was what the decision was about, religious 'freedom'.
You brought up religion.
? What kind of Health insurance do you subscribe to? Do you get arthritis pill coverage even though you don't have arthritis?
No, but... thanks for not answering that question.
The issue was over whether employers could deny their employee's birth control on their insurance plan on the basis of religious grounds.
If the business owner has to pay for it, then yes.
I would say the same thing for any man demanding their employer pay for viagra coverage.
If you voluntarily decide to either buy a product or do certain things, you do no have the right to dump that cost on to anyone else.
It was your decision.
It's like how I go to a Carl's Jr., give them my money and expect a Burger in return that I wanted. That's not some spoiled brat asking for shit that's the way the world should work.
Except my mom and dad didn't give them money for coverage they didn't want.
People like you came in and told them "You have to get coverage for these things, it doesn't matter if you want it or not."
I've noticed when I re-read some of my posts and I sound as dumb as you. So you understand that the way you debate is childish and leads to nothing?
Life is essentially worthless anyway. Mine as well have some fun while I'm here.
At 7/3/14 04:10 PM, Warforger wrote:
So protesting is above you? You're above fighting for what you believe in?
Did you walk out in protest over the supreme court ruling?
I'm curious before I answer. What you asked was rather awkward and really didn't address anything.
Even though I mentioned nothing about religion.Right because I was supposedly attacking you.
Are you alright?
I make a point without ever referring in any way to religion, whereupon you bring up religion, prompting me to point out that I never made mention of of it...
And you're response to that is this?
You're not going to get any argument or defense from me about people who were arguing on the basis of religious liberty.
Only about the inherent unfairness of forcing other people to pay for your voluntary, non-medically necessary life choices.It's not because you're paying into health insurance, which entitles you to use its benefits.
So, according to you, my father should have to be covered for maternity leave and pay a higher premium for it... despite it being impossible for him to use?
So, according to you, my mother should also be forced to take coverage for maternity leave despite not being able to have any more children and also pay for contraception coverage for which she has literally no use for... all while forcing her to pay higher premiums for them.
Care to explain to me how she's using these things she's now forced to be covered for and pay into when:
1) She has no use for them.
and
2) They're impossible for her to use.
No I'm not against it because this is health insurance we're talking about and all I'm really saying is that it's done for men and it should be done for women as well.
The correct answer would be: It shouldn't be done for anyone.
Or rather, people should be able to choose what they want to do as long as it's voluntary.
I don't consider your "rights" to be violated when all it amounts to is "Give me shit."
Memorize, you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot and a baby so what would be the point?
Funny thing about that fake asshole attitude of mine. It eventually causes you to behave the exact same way.
At 7/3/14 10:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
You're defending the decision, which leaves viagra and its similar drugs covered, but fails to cover simple sexual medice for women.
The decision was based on whether or not you could force a company or people in a company to provide things you demand, not what the company could provide you.
You would get the same result if insurance or companies were forcing people to accept coverage for viagra, even if they didn't want it.
Unless you want them to start legislating from the bench... again.
Because of this, it can be presumed your opinion matches that of SCOTUS.
I'm in favor of people offering the coverage they want to offer and people then voluntarily seeking out that coverage, if they want it.
If an insurance company wants to offer coverage for contraception (which most do), they can. And it's your choice as to whether or not you want to take it.
If an insurance company wants to offer coverage for viagra, they can. And it's your choice as to whether or not you want to take it.
Both of which; however, are idiotic.
What we have here though, is a sample of the American electorate who too lazy and cheap to pay for their own shit, that they're demanding other people and entities cover it for them.
It wouldn't be any different from someone bitching about Viagra not being listed as an option.
It's an all or nothing thing.
There are only two options:
1) Force
2) Voluntarism
The reason why I call people like him a hypocrite is because it's obvious that he doesn't like the Government or any industry covering for Viagra or vasectomies, so he demands more be taken from innocent individuals who want/have nothing to do with it to subsidize yet another group.
And yet he wants to call this "fairness."
When you give men all of their sexual playthings on the dime, but force women to pay for their own, that's when you have a problem.
Unless you re-read the very top of this thread and realize that "Hobby Lobby" covers almost all of them.
So...
This is especially strong when the things covered for men are actually just sexual playthings and the items NOT covered for women have some real health benefits. Those who criticize the inclusion of viagra, only do so because women's sexual health is being attacked. If women's sexual health was 100% covered, no one would care about viagra being covered.
Their health isn't being attacked.
Except in cases of rape, YOU are the one making these VOLUNTARY decisions. No one is forcing you to do shit.
Let me ask you a question: Would you hold the same position for getting coverage for a smoker?
What would you think if a smoker demanded insurance coverage for Nicotine patches? All while also demanding to pay the same insurance premiums as everyone else by forcing everyone else (including non-smokers) to get coverage for it?
At 7/3/14 06:23 AM, Warforger wrote:
Exactly, we should protest to kick Viagra, penis pumps and circumcisions to not be covered by Medical Insurance! After all it violates my religious beliefs.
You should.
Even though I mentioned nothing about religion.
Only about the inherent unfairness of forcing other people to pay for your voluntary, non-medically necessary life choices.
Although I'm somewhat confused by your sarcastic counter-argument because:
1) Why would you assume I'd be in favor of Viagra being covered?
2) You're obviously against that, so why would you then be in favor of the Government covering it for the female side?
It just makes you look like either a hypocrite, or a cry baby shouting out: "But but... you do it for THEM!"
At 7/2/14 11:29 PM, NeonSpider wrote: To say essentially "Well it isn't that expensive so I don't care if it's not covered" is a bit unfair don't you think? What "isn't expensive" for you might be "very expensive" for someone else and so forth.
Also if it's something which is typically covered under company insurance but this company specifically chooses not to cover it without employee approval, isn't that at the very least a bit asinine?
Shouldn't medical coverage only be for medical needs?
Why should someone with no medical need jump in line with those who do have one to claim benefit?
Why should someone just wanting someone else to pay for their completely voluntary life style be lumped in with people who actually have a medical condition?
At 7/1/14 01:33 PM, Warforger wrote:At 7/1/14 04:37 AM, Memorize wrote: How?I think you missed the point of what he was responding to. Unless you think that cutting yourself is murder.
So biology doesn't matter... a person's feelings do?
You do realize that a fetus does not genetically match the mother, right?
And that if you compared its DNA to said mother, the findings would come back as stating the fetus is her biological child.
That doesn't change upon further biological development.
At 7/1/14 02:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Actually biology does matter.
Apparently not for much.
Up until the point where a fetus is considered an inedependent person the mother is the arbiter of its personhood status.
How can you claim that when a "person" has no scientific backing to it? You're making up your own personal definition.
It has to be based purely on science; everything else is irrelevant, especially someone's personal whims or feelings.
The presumption is that unless aborted the mother has decided to confer that status upon the fetus.
A status that completely defies biology...
The line that is of issue is when the state steps in and makes the decision for the mother.
Based on personal feelings...
Biology is the reason the mother gets to ontrol up until the per se line that the state decides.
In Canada's Case, abortion up to the moment before birth.
In the United State's case, abortion up the moment before birth, unless the state decides to intervene in the 3rd Trimester (according to Roe. V. Wade prior to 2003).
So now the law decides? Once, again, based on an aspect that makes no biological sense.
According to you, it's a person, automatically, based on viability. But viability is defined as the capability of surviving outside the womb medically assisted.
That means that viability is dictated by outside technological forces, not by the biological make up of the fetus.
Which further means, hypothetically, that viability for a fetus in the future would be placed at earlier stages of development. So a viable fetus in 1973 is 24 weeks, while viability in 2013 (based on similar survival rates) could be 22 weeks.
How then, does it make any scientific sense to consider the 22 week old fetus in 2013 to be a "person", but not the 23 week old fetus in 1973?
After all, the 23 week old fetus is more biologically developed.
Up until the fetus is a viable the fetus is another appendage of mother,
Genetics and a basic understanding of elementary level biology would beg to differ.
At 6/29/14 01:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
it isnt a person yet, and thus cannot be murdered any more than one's own blood cells could beTrure, but as it is part of the mother and the mother did not make the decision, personhood status can be attached for this purpose alone.
How?
So biology doesn't matter... a person's feelings do?
At 6/24/14 11:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Once a human attains peronhood they can never lose it. Non viable fetsuses have not yet attained personhood.
Then explain something to me.
If that's true, consider this example.
Pro-life individual claims that a fetus should be considered a person because they will eventually be born. Pro-Choice (and your) Response is to say: It doesn't matter what it will be, what matters is what it currently is... which is not a person.
If this is the case, then how can you claim no one can ever lose person-hood status? I can just as easily claim, with the same logic, that it doesn't matter what it used to be, what matters is what it currently is. Especially when the word "person" has no scientific definition to what constitutes a "person."
If person-hood is defined then by viability, then why does this standard disappear when dealing with the terminally ill cancer patients in hospitals who can't even survive with medical assistance? After all, they're no longer viable.
I suppose you'll bring up cognitive faculties, but wait... that begins development well before viability.
So are you saying you're in favor of banning abortion at an earlier stage?
lol, I doubt it.
At 6/21/14 03:22 PM, Warforger wrote:
I've not seen anything which says the Native Americans gave themselves that distinction outside of Native American people in OKlahoma. May I remind you that YOU are the one using only one example?
How many examples would you like?
I also love your argumentative standards.
First you claim none did, then I give you a general example of one doing so.
Your response to this revelation is go into bunker mentality mode and say: "Well... not all of em'!"
Seriously; you've lost that one. So fuck off, lol.
Again strawman. How many Liberals said they were anti-war? Perhaps anti-Iraq war, but people were not "no war at all please".
Correction: No war unless it's a Democrat continuing and/or expanding them.
Yah as you let out the anger from those kids who hurt your feelings and you're still too bitter to grow up and get over it
Hate to break it to you, but I've never been the subject of bullying. Not when I always stood at least a head taller than everyone else.
You see you're bringing up Obama, and never did I mention Obama. You're full of shit honestly.
Notice that the only time you observed this little tidbit was when I mentioned Obama, and not any of the other things I mentioned.
Ah so you admit I'm right?
I think you need to learn how to follow through on a topic.
1) The term "Redskins" was first recorded to be used by whites. Your claim that it was back in the early 1500's makes no sense because Columbus came in 1492, and I really doubt by that time the Choctaw were major Indians that not only the Europeans were trading with them so regularly that they learned their language. I've seen no source for your claim. The earliest attested use was in the early 1800's
I wasn't referring to the English language, Genius.
I was referring to the Spanish who previously came before.
2) It doesn't matter if it was ever intended to be offensive, "negro" wasn't either but that word reflects generations of servitude. And now you can go back to my post and address my points instead of turning it into some Liberal bashing.
And yet that word was on the previous census.
Great, you're finally catching up using
I see you've forgotten to finish your thoughts there.
No I'm not. I'm arguing the criteria for what is and isn't offensive, which you've completely dodged and ignored.
Words are only offensive depending on the meaning.
What gives words meaning? Societal norms, customs and historical context.
So the question is: Under what circumstances was the naming of the team "Redskins" ever motivated to be politically or racially offensive?
Which makes me think, why do I even bother? You're an idiot.
You apparently failed to learn basic native american history as a child. Nor do you understand what context is.
But I'm the idiot. The Native American who sees the double standard as hilarious. Although I find it amusing that it's only you Politically Correct types who conjure up racial images to the word and not really anyone else.
But everyone else is the racist, right?
You enter all of these conversations with an agenda to bag on Liberals and some imaginary bully.
You mean like your "imaginary" controversy over a word?
I try to argue something constructive and you turn it into some left wing v. right wing horse shit. Learn to read first, go back to my post and address my points. I'm sick of this shit.
umad? umad, bro?
The one who is, is the Oneida Indian Nation. You know those upper class white people in New York.
I would like to point out that just because 1 person of a group finds something offensive, that doesn't make it so.
You hate anyone whose a "Liberal", you assign beliefs and rich boy status to all of them.
Don't forget the anti-war hypocrisy.
lol. There's this thing called "cost of living".
I live in an upper class area of Florida where the cheapest 1 bed 1 bath apartment starts at $1100 a month.
It's cost of living is 20% higher than the national average.
The other issue is that people are losing money because regulations are gone because of morons like you. Go take an economics class.
Nevermind the fact that areas with the most rent control regulation have the highest rent costs.
San Francisco being one such area. The irony of you using that city is astounding actually.
At 6/23/14 04:17 AM, Entice wrote:
Yes all native Americans have the same static ethnicity and culture so a name used by the Choctaw 100+ years ago must prove that the word "redskins" is universally inoffensive in 2014
So we should force companies to rename the product of (for example) Cracker Jacks because you could find 1 white guy who found it offensive?
Oh right. I, as a native american, should have more of a right to free speech than whitey, according to you (historical context be damned).
At 6/20/14 03:58 PM, Warforger wrote:
Which Indians? Because it sure as hell wasn't all of them. Unless you think Cherokee's, Seminoles, Sioux etc. are all the same.
Typical. Always attempting to find that 1 example out of millions as the excuse.
Of course not every tribe had that, but some did. And even more tribes later followed with that distinction.
Why? Because Native Americans are still human and they didn't do anything differently in terms of separating themselves from others.
They did the same thing. But it's only considered racist when you Europeans do it, right?
Now do I honestly think like that? No. But that's how you're acting.
I have reason enough to, don't I?
All those years of liberals pretending to be anti-war, only to support Obama who has gotten more people killed than Bush in half the time.
\
Yes I do, it's when you try to construct a punching bag to debate against instead of the actual person at hand.
You are a punching bag. It's fun.
In your case you associate everyone who doesn't agree with you with those hated "Liberals", who are rich and spoiled and don't know what it's like to be poor. You do this every thread and it's just fucking retarded.
I didn't say all of you. There are liberals I absolutely love, like Glenn Greenwald, Cornell West, and Jeremy Scahill. Why? Because unlike you, they didn't come up with excuses for Obama doing what Bush did.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know every Native American speaks Choctaw.
No. Apparently you thought they were speaking Cherokee.
1) You're a Native American who thinks he can speak for all Native Americans and seems to think that they all speak the same language.
When did I say they all spoke the same language?
I merely gave you an example because you claimed it wasn't ever true.
And no, I don't claim to speak for others. I was just letting you know what Native Americans, by the numbers, think about the word.
YOU are the one telling us what we should be offended by.
And I'm telling you that it's racist to single out 1 group and tell them that because they don't belong to a particular race, that they can't say a certain phrase or word (no matter it's context or historical meaning).
2) You didn't address my point, which is the way you're trying to justify what's racist or not isn't very realistic.
You never answered my question.
Ah time to reread my post again! Try reading next time.
And... I repeat.
Including those Liberals who are poor and fight for other poor people. What dickbags.
And yet, still people who think they're entitled to things they never earned nor worked for.
Because that's middle class. You clearly don't understand the difference between "rich" and middle class, a class which is on the one hand the basis of the economy, and on the other the class which the rich mostly take their money from.
See? And that's why I hate you.
Median income for the "middle class" has dropped around $3k to $4k since the Recession began to now well below $40k a year.
You live in a country where you can easily (in most areas) live comfortably just under $30k a year (you don't need to own a house, or a car), and yet you're going to say that during these times in a 1st world industrialized Developed country, that making well over $65k a year is considered "middle class."
With just over $25k a year (part time job and school) and biking everywhere I go, I can afford an apartment, pay all my bills, pay for internet, electric, water and phone, dental work, a new computer, plenty of clothes, and buy a few games here and there...
And you're going to tell me that $65k is middle class? LOL!
"you people", nope that just makes me think you're even more full of shit and unwilling to view the world from anyone's viewpoint than your own.
Your viewpoint to me is akin to a millionaire crying poverty and complaining about the billionaire who has more money than him.
At 6/20/14 01:58 AM, Warforger wrote:
Um no. "Okla Humma" is around the 1860's to name their Indian Territory.
Right. It was suggested by a Chief and adopted during treaty negotiations, and later became a state.
And again, Choctaw is one Native American language, NOT EVERY SINGLE ONE. It is even more irrelevant in Washington.
You do realize we have documents revealing that Native Americans called white people "White skins" and themselves as "Red skins", right?
You getting bullied and you taking out your anger on "rich liberals" is completely irrelevant. Maybe if you worked hard like a Liberal you'd be rich and secure.
I wish mommy and daddy could shower me with money like they did you.
Seriously? You speak for me and others all the time to create strawmen to attack because it's easier than having a logical debate. It'd be like the pot calling the kettle black if I were speaking for you.
The only reason why you people throw around the word "strawman" (as if you even know what it means) is because I call you people out on your bullshit hypocrisy.
Bush bails out the banks = Shill for the Corporations!
Obama votes in favor of bailing out the banks = Well we had to do it!
Which you do realize doesn't help your argument?
It sure does when you're incapable of reading.
as towards the late 19th century. It wasn't offensive back in the days when the N word wasn't offensive so that's not a good argument.
Except you're missing the point where: It's never been offensive.
It didn't start out as offensive. It wasn't turned into something offensive.
Quit acting like you care about people like me just because you want to tell me that I can say it since I'm Indian, but white people can't.
We never used it or viewed it as an offensive word. Outside of maybe some very obscure cases here and there, it's never been a socially offensive word. Nor has it ever been viewed as offensive for the name of a Football team.
This is just a bunch of politically correct assholes, like you, pretending to give a shit so you can feel better about yourselves.
Whoops looks like you've completely missed the point of my post!
It's funny how your responses only prove mine.
A white guy telling an Indian he should be offended by a word in which Indians have almost always used and never found offensive.
Uh right, too bad it's Native Americans doing this.
Because, once again, that 10% outweighs the 90% and can claim to speak for them without their approval or knowledge.
I like how on any other issue, if numbers were that lopsided then the 10% mine as well wouldn't exist.
But either way, quite acting like some bitter teenager. I don't know what you have against rich white Liberals but you attack them every time you post something to add some sort of emotional response to it. The way you post it sounds like some rich white guys bullied you in school or something.
Oh I'm sorry. You see, before I was born my father and his family grew up all around the world seeing various people and cultures. This was because his father got out of the military and with voluntary money was part off groups that went over (primarily to African countries) to set up schools. My father grew up around the world because of that, and as a result showed me pictures and videos of the various places he lived and traveled. Including what the people and Governments were like in those areas.
As a result, without being either pushed in this direction or told this: I developed an absolute hatred of people who pretend that they know what being poor is like.
Which are primarily liberals.
Tax the rich? Since when was $250k the lowest point for what people consider "rich?" I would consider $65k to be a low estimate of a rich person (especially in an industrialized first world country). So when a liberal says "tax the rich", what they really mean is "Tax the people who are slightly richer than we are."
Which is why, despite all my liberal positions (anti-war, pro-gay marriage, against death penalty, legalizing all drugs and prostitution), I still can't shake off my desire to absolutely hate you people with every fiber of my being.
I hope that answers it!
At 6/19/14 11:10 PM, Warforger wrote:
Um no the people who first used it were Europeans; not Native Americans. Mostly the word for their tribe meant "people" and in turn for other tribes which they were frequently at war with "enemy", hence Lakota and Sioux Indians being one and the same.
Okla = People
Humma = Red
It's Choctaw. And it's what the Choctaw used after the early 1500's to describe themselves and differentiate from the Europeans.
Ah strawman. Awww I'm sorry, did the rich Liberal kids bully you in school? If so that's completely irrelevant and you should stop using it as an argument.
Since when is it irrelevant?
Since when did you claim the right to speak for me, you worthless fuck?
Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma =/= all Native Americans. That's like saying the N-word shouldn't be offensive because it derives from 'niger' which a country in Africa calls itself.
I said Choctaw, stupid ass.
And you still haven't answered my question.
And you seem to forget that the English word Redskins was never originally used as a racially offensive word. That, and Native Americans don't even see it as one.
All this is, is you historically illiterate, liberal morons pretending you give a shit about minorities so you can feel better about yourselves.
At 6/19/14 03:12 PM, Warforger wrote:
So something is racist only if people of that race think it's racist. So if the majority of black people think that the N-word (which newgrounds doesn't allow) isn't racist, is it no longer racist? This argument in general is a bit of a weak one
It would be if I actually said that.
Never mind the history lesson I gave you where you glossed over the fact that "Redskins" was merely the direct English translation of what Native Americans used to refer to themselves as was primarily a way of differentiating the groups.
Also never mind the fact that Native Americans themselves have never viewed the term as being racially insensitive (and why would we? We were calling ourselves that before Mr European suddenly decided it was for us).
You want to know what I find racially insensitive? A bunch of upper class white guys sitting around a table us minorities what we should and shouldn't be offended by.
But still, I would like you all tell me: Why is it ok for Native Americans like me to suggest giving an entire state the name "Red People" (Oklahoma), but not for a single team to name themselves the same with an English translation?
At 6/19/14 12:49 AM, Light wrote:
Did you even read the article you cited?
Yes, but all I needed was the poll.
Because according to you, in a room of 100 people, 10 can claim to speak for the other 90. And I'm not about to let a group of historically illiterate fucks sue people claiming it was for my benefit.
The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans.
Which isn't even close to true. You don't know any Native Americans who refer to themselves as that when only around each other.
I think that's worth noting. And, historically, the term "Redskins" has been used to denigrate Native Americans.
But I'm calling bullshit because the term came from Native Americans in the first place.
Quick question: Do you even know where the name Oklahoma came from?
It's Choctaw. And the name for the state was a suggestion given by a Choctaw chief.
Redskins is merely the most direct English translation of two Native American words.
So here's another question: Why is it ok for people like me to suggest an entire state be called "Red People", but not ok for a sports team to do the same thing in the English language?
At 6/18/14 08:23 PM, Light wrote:At 6/18/14 07:25 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh jesus what a bunch of whiny bitches. OHHH THAT HURTS MY FEELINGS! OH IM OFFENDED! jesus grow up and grow a pair.Did you even try to understand why they're offended? They believe the name is racist, and to be honest, they're completely right. Can you show to us today how and why the team's name isn't racist? Please, put some effort into your post this time.
"In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive..."
You know what I do find offensive? A bunch of upper class white people sitting around telling minorities what they should and shouldn't feel offended by.
So fuck you, for one.
And secondly, try actually reading up where the term Redskin originated from. It'll help you morons do something you've done in your entire lives...
Learn.
At 3/6/14 05:51 PM, Knis wrote:
Why can't you play an asshole without playing an idiot?
lol, still butt hurt are we?
Or is this your way of finally realizing how odd your "will before existence" claim was?
At 3/6/14 01:28 PM, Feoric wrote:At 3/6/14 01:20 PM, Memorize wrote: You're like the twin that claims he's older by 3 minutes.Is he wrong, though?
No...
Damn you.
At 3/6/14 01:59 PM, Light wrote: lol, this is seriously bothering me now.
Maybe Feoric is right and Memorize is just an alt. I wish I were a mod so that I could see your IP addresses and confirm or disprove that claim.
If we were, you'd think they'd let us keep posting back and forth like this? Or allowing one to post while the other is banned?
But fine! How about I be regular me, then?
At 3/6/14 01:28 PM, Feoric wrote:At 3/6/14 01:20 PM, Memorize wrote: You're like the twin that claims he's older by 3 minutes.Is he wrong, though?
No...
Damn you.
At 3/6/14 01:59 PM, Light wrote: lol, this is seriously bothering me now.
Maybe Feoric is right and Memorize is just an alt. I wish I were a mod so that I could see your IP addresses and confirm or disprove that claim.
If we were, you'd think they'd let us keep posting back and forth like this? Or allowing one to post while the other is banned?
But fine! How about I be regular me, then?
At 3/6/14 02:55 PM, Knis wrote:
At 1/17/14 11:56 PM, Memorize wrote:You're the one who voluntarily engaged in activity, thereby forcing the 'fetus' against it's will to be there in the first place.
Right...
Because it didn't have will.
It was forced into existence and you are deciding to kill it without its input.
I like how you stretched that though.
Allow me to clarify this, since basic concepts seem to escape you somehow.
If I forced you to do something against your choice, it means that you had no choice to begin with. It means that someone (me) is forcing you to do it. It does not mean that you had a choice, otherwise that would miss the point.
No one is going to retort by saying "You're claiming I had a choice!"
It's the same thing. When I say "A fetus is forced into existence against its will", I'm saying it never had a choice to begin with. I'm saying it's the parent's fault, not the fetus.
And that excuses like "It's my body" (not biologically), "it's a parasite" (not biologically or under any definition in any dictionary", are really just excuses people have always used on any issue to escape blame for their own voluntary decisions.
No one is going to take me or anyone else seriously if despite knowing the risks of eating fast food every day for years, I still said "It's not my fault I'm overweight."
You did repeatedly imply that will precedes existence, even in the same post in which you tried to deny the claim.
C'mon. You knew exactly what I posted and what I meant.
What happened is you claimed I did based on a misreading of what I said about a 24 week old fetus, so in your desperate attempt to keep this little facade going, you then reinterpreted (in a fairly perverse way) something else I said on a different date.
For instance. If a movie was made where an inventor built a robot and the robot said "You forced me to exist against my will", no one would ever think that the robot had "will" before he existed.
Everyone would rightfully think he merely had no choice in the matter.
You did claim that the fct the SCOTUS made a decision means I agree with it.
Then why did you bring up SCOTUS?
I never mentioned the Supreme Court. I didn't say anything about their ruling.
You did, when I asked you where your position on 24 weeks came from.
You claimed one can't base person hood on cognitive faculties because then they would have to arbitrarily set the mark at 10 weeks.
Depending on how you define it.
Because that's when its development begins.
That's why most of the modern Western industrialized world bans abortion after 12 weeks (first Trimester).
Seriously Memorize, you give up? You never actually tried.
Does one really need to "try" when saying 2 + 2 = 4?
At 3/6/14 01:07 PM, Feoric wrote:At 3/6/14 12:56 PM, Memorize wrote: I still hate him though for registering before me by mere months.Well that's why I win 95% of the arguments here. Seniority rules, like in the Senate.
You're like the twin that claims he's older by 3 minutes.
At 3/6/14 12:41 PM, Feoric wrote:At 3/6/14 02:51 AM, Light wrote: I could never really understand why Memorize gets so emotionally invested in these debates that he starts insulting his opponents gratuitously and profusely.I've explained this like 10 times already. I am Memorize. That is my alt account. I'm just fucking with you guys.
See?
We're actually quite alike.
I still hate him though for registering before me by mere months.
At 3/6/14 02:51 AM, Light wrote: I could never really understand why Memorize gets so emotionally invested in these debates that he starts insulting his opponents gratuitously and profusely.
It kind of defeats the purpose of engaging in a discussion over the issues if his purpose in doing so is to persuade others to adopt his point of view, which I assume it is. It's not exactly a sign of high intelligence.
Your first mistake was assuming I ever wanted to persuade anyone.
After all, this attitude only started because I wanted to see how the self righteous people on this forum would react to someone who adopted their same asshole personality.
And what a surprise, they then use that fake asshole personality as an excuse to run away or divert attention from the subject.
You ever notice how when people never have an argument left to make, they immediately latch on to my insults instead as a way of trying to sidestep actually making an argument?
Take Feroic for example. I've been fucking with him for ages, lol.
At 3/5/14 05:19 PM, Knis wrote:
I was unaware that I was required to agree with someone I've never even met. Thanky you for telling me this.
You're Welcome!
So Cam who should my favorite lacrosse team be? I need to know because Memorize tells me I have to believe what you believe.
Never said you should, but you do.
Knis: "Don't tell me I support what someone else does! ...Now let me explain how I do!"
My position is based on cognitive abilities, which you admit is based on biological processes.
Cognitive functions begin development at around 10 weeks, not 24.
Viability is not based on cognitive faculties.
Genius.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Viability as defined by Roe v Wade.
The likelihood of survival of a fetus outside the womb, medically assisted.
What does medical technology have to do with the biological make up of a fetus?
And since technology advances over time, then how can you support aborting a fetus at 23 weeks today, but then be against it at some point in the future when technology advances to make 23 weeks viable?
After all, there's no difference, biologically, of a fetus at 23 weeks today and a fetus as 23 weeks several decades from now.
I know I has to tell you when it happened remember. And It still doesn't change the fact that It was not my decision, but the SCOTUS, I didn't even exist yet, and I wasn't on the SCOTUS at the time, so why you insist tht this is my positon, I'll never know.
I'm giving you the SCOTUS decision, dumb ass.
They determined it on viability. Viability, as defined by Roe v Wade, is the likelihood of survival of a fetus outside the womb MEDICALLY ASSISTED.
24 weeks (end of 2nd Tri mester) was set up 40 years ago.
Medical technology has advanced since then.
Meaning, a fetus younger than 24 weeks is viable based on their definition and ruling.
Read. Please.
No, I admit Roe V Wade happened in 1973. I have no comment on the consistency of the SCoTUS' decision, and one again it 9s not mine, I was never on the SCOTUS, I am not in any way associated with them, so why do you hold that their decision is somehow my opinion?
Because YOU brought it up as YOUR defense.
What, that you're incpable of honest discussion? Not really people like you are a dime a gross.
I never mention SCOTUS.
You bring up SCOTUS and Roe v Wade to support your side.
I literally give you the SCOTUS definition of viability that renders your 24 weeks position to be nonsense.
And now you're asking me what their decision has to do with your position?
Are you mentally handicapped?
You're source, does not say that all cognitive faculties are present at ten weeks, I haven't even read it, and I still know it doesn't say that, but I'm the dumb ass for pointing out many cognitive faculties aren't in place till after birth?
1). I said it begins development at 10 weeks, not it being complete at 10 weeks.
2. Then why do you keep bringing up 24 weeks? Why do you keep bringing up viability?
Seriously don't call others dumb asses on the basis that you don't know what you're talking about.
...
lol
No, you didn't, ever, you just repeated threw insults and pretended you shouldn't have to define your terms.
Did you get held back a lot as a child?
Point? You have still claimed that will precedes existence repeatedly.
No, I didn't.
You're response pointing out the time and date proves it.
I went back and looked at the time and date, and this is what I said:
At 1/20/14 07:31 PM, Knis wrote:
B4 24 weeks the fetus literally has no will
At 1/29/14 02:23 AM, Memorize wrote:
Despite people being born, alive, and still living at 23, 22, and 21 weeks...
At 3/4/14 05:34 PM, Memorize wrote:
So what the fuck do you mean by "will"? How does a fetus not have "will" prior to 24 weeks when 24 weeks is merely an archaic standard based on survivability likelihood from the 70's?
I pointed out that a fetus obviously existed prior to the 24th week.
That's why I brought up a 22 week old fetus and 23 week old fetus.
So I repeat: When the FUCK did I ever say will preceded existence?
I give up.
You must really ride the short bus to school, don't you?
lol, holy fucking shit, you're retarded.
At 3/5/14 01:24 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
I don't base it on medical viability. I base it on biological progression. The point at which a baby is independent of the mother, meaning that it can survive outside of the womb with minimal medical assistance.
Still medical interference.
And what's your definition of minimal? And under what time frame? Would today's minimal be tomorrow's?
The mere fact that a baby may be able to be supported on life support at 18 weeks doesn't make it viable. It makes it still so dependent on its mother that it can only live outside of the womb with a surrogate mother (being the machines keeping it alive). I would place the limit of medical assistance being that up to only slightly more of what a medium-high risk full term birth would need (maybe some medicine, a close eye, and a light bit of other medical work.)
Based on today's standard's of medium-high risk.
The difference between a nonviable baby and a human vegetable is that the vegetable has already had its human status. The fetus is not yet a human until it becomes more than just an attachment of mother, that stage occurring at true viability, not artificial viability.
Funny how when pro-life people claim that a fetus should be considered a person because it will eventually be born, the pro-choice response is: "It doesn't matter what it will be, what matters is what it currently is."
Same rules apply.
It doesn't matter what a vegetable was, it only matters what it currently is.
You're not going to claim a dead person is still alive merely because he/she achieved living, are you?
At 3/5/14 02:33 AM, Knis wrote:
Thank you for telling me what my people believe, I was under the misgueded impression that I was an individual.
I like how you say that right after Cam comes on to support that view.
My position IS based on biological progress.
How?
How can your position be based on biological development when it's being interfered with from an outside source (Medical technology)?
I dpon't know because I didn't choose that the SCOTUS choose that
Roe v Wade determines viability based on medical advancement (it being 24 weeks at the time).
I have news for you... that was 40 years ago...
1973
So you admit that not only do you support an inconsistent position of viability based on an outside, non-biological interference (technology), but only do so because of what a bunch of non-physicians in black robes told you (which, ironically, is also not based on science).
Fascinating.
Actually that could push back the limit till birth, and make killing a baby after birth acceptable. Depending on what cognitive faculties you're referring to.So what's with the "have to " bullshit?
And it begins development even earlier than that.
Until you define your made up on the spot terms, I'm not going to define my commonly used ones anymore, 'kay?.
I did. You're just an idiot with a reading problem.
Because it lacks the necessary biological structure for will. Next retarded question?
It's amazing how stupid you are, lol.
And again How the fuck does a fetus have will before it exists? How does believing it has will before it exists, not make you a hypocrite for criticizing others for ignoring science.
...What?
I'm pretty sure the fetus exists prior to 24 weeks...
The only real, substantial, developmental change in a fetus from 20-24 weeks is the development of pain reception. And you're not going to seriously argue that feeling pain determines "will" are you?
No, and I doubt your unsourced claim. Man newgrounds poli has really gone down hill in the sourcing department.
Development prior to 24 weeks, may not be felt until at least 24. Still not sure.
I repeat: You're an idiot.
In other words, you don't care if your positions are consistent. That's not ironic, it's expected of you.
What are you talking about?
You're claiming a fetus is a mere outgrowth, I proved you wrong.
So you bring up twins... which doesn't disprove anything I said. Lol.
Dumbass.
Nice try.
And you criticize others for ignoring science? You just asked when you stated that will proceeds existence, and here you go reasserting your belief that will precedes existence.
When did I ever say that will proceeded existence?
When?
When?!
WHEN!?
3) A person has the right to control their own bodies and can not to be forced to be a host to a parasite. and a non sentient non aware life form isn't a person because only a retard would tell you that a dead human being IS a person.
So... a living, human entity comprised of LIVING cells equals... dead?
God damn how did you ever get through a basic science class?
At 3/2/14 06:38 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
Your missing the point of this thread. You are also derailing the topic at hand.
If you were a Democrat, but supported nothing but Republican positions (a party both you and I find idiotic)...
And then I, as a way of insulting you, called you Mr. Republican (to imply you were an idiot)...
Would you honestly believe that I accusing you of being a registered Republican?
Are sarcastic insults outside of your comprehension?
At 3/4/14 12:14 AM, Knis wrote:
Despite people being born, alive, and still living at 23, 22, and 21 weeks...And here
You people are the ones who supports abortion up to the point of viability. My question is: Why is your position based on medical advancement rather than biological progression?
Why was it ok to abort a 23 week old fetus in the 70's, but yet no "ok" today because technology makes it viable?
And why would you choose 24 weeks to give a fetus "person-hood" status? Since when did viability (being able to live essentially) suddenly determine person-hood status? And why is this standard only applied to a fetus and not cancer patients?
Oh... right, because if it were actually based it on something consistent like, say, cognitive faculties, then you'd have to ban abortions well within the first Tri-mester.
So what the fuck do you mean by "will"? How does a fetus not have "will" prior to 24 weeks when 24 weeks is merely an archaic standard based on survivability likelihood from the 70's?
The only real, substantial, developmental change in a fetus from 20-24 weeks is the development of pain reception. And you're not going to seriously argue that feeling pain determines "will" are you?
Does that mean mono-zygotic twins are one individual? How many votes Do(es) they/it get? Can one kill it'self/the other and it not be murder?
That doesn't even matter, ironically.
I was only pointing out that a fetus is NOT either of the parent's, biologically. It's a separate, living, human entity that was forced (against its will) into existence.
So the only way you can justify killing it (outside of rape and health) is by either two possibilities:
1) By claiming it's "merely an extenstion of the mother". Which is biological bullshit that shows how scientific illiterate you are.
Or
2) You acknowledge it's a separate human life (ie. Not YOU), but you should still be able to kill it because it's merely there... ie. Slavery.
If you're going to claim that a genetically independent,
Here's the thing, when you refuse to define your terms, every time you use one the said terms you're actually stating "I don't have a coherent position and therefor am using meaningless phrases in order to make it look like I have one."
I've explained it time and time again you dumb mother fucker.
Open up a God damn biology book, turn to the sexual reproduction section, and learn to fucking read.
