Is This A Human Being?
Thordaddy said...
Why is anybody surprised that these radical autonomists define personhood WITHOUT EVER actually defining personhood?Cats act like we can't erase lines and draw them again.
The best that science has to offer on personhood??? Nothing!!!
So start with conception BECAUSE it is the beginning... And all the potential for personhood is there, unquestionably.
And so the only thing between potential personhood and personhood is the radical or sensible will of the mother.
These cats choose the radical will cuz birds of a feather flock together... That, or they're emasculated feminists?
65 comments:
It's been two days Larooshifer.
Oh come now Levar Burton Malthus.
They grow those cloned pigs you eat in 2 months when it used to take 7.
You might as well call 2 days a week.
Just pretend each day has been genetically modified.
Now. Is this the image of a person?
Or does this child need to wait "7 years" to be thought of as a person, according to your Freemasonic Negro Voodoo.
You first DeeVee.
quoth KW;
But shouldn't it have been a picture of the foetus in the womb (possibly in the first or second trimester) as that's what the quote refers to & that's where the debate is; is a foetus a person?
Is that the image of zygote?
Is that the image of a foetus?
Or does this child need to wait "7 years" to be thought of as a person, according to your Freemasonic Negro Voodoo.
I wasn't aware that the Livingstonian upline disapproves of the Catholic Church and its traditional definition of the "age of moral responsibility" - learn a new bit of LaRooshian agitprop every single day.
"They grow those cloned pigs you eat in 2 months when it used to take 7.
You might as well call 2 days a week.
Just pretend each day has been genetically modified."
LMAO!!! xD
Despite CNU's obfuscations, he brings up valid points from time to time. We know that he is wrong on this issue, but on the issue of taking ACTION on topics of concern to all of us, he is right. Here is a link to the Center for Food Safety. They have a beat Monsanto campaign where they are going to take them to the Supreme Court but need donations for legal fees. Info is on the site. They also provided this booklet, which is VERY useful (PDF).
I was heartened to find out the following things:
FRUITS & VEGETABLES
Very few fresh fruits and vegetables for sale in the U.S. are genetically modified. Novel products such as seedless watermelons are NOT genetically modified. Small amounts of zucchini, yellow crookneck squash and sweet corn may be GM.
The only commercialized GM fruit is papaya from Hawaii—
about half of Hawaii’s papayas are GM. MEAT, FISH & EGGS
No genetically modified fish, fowl, or livestock is yet approved
for human consumption. However, plenty of non-organic foods
are produced from animals raised on GM feed such as grains.
Look for wild rather than farmed fish to avoid fish raised on
genetically modified feed, and 100% grass-fed animals.
So I guess plantation negroes aren't eating cloned meats quite yet...
BTW, who cares how the Catholic church defines personhood? They've been wrong about a great number of things like with Copernicus or Galileo for starters. You created your own straw man Craig.
What is all heavy breathing going on here? That child (I assume he's alive during the picture) is obviously a human person...BECAUSE he made it out of the womb alive, or was shortly after resuscitated once exiting. There is no personhood when you are in the womb. That's where the line is drawn. A pregnant trauma victim is treated as ONE patient. Period. We try to do things that will save her fetus as it is a potential human. Why are you all continuing this argument?
There's no argument in law or medicine. If you all want to foam at the mouth enjoy your spittle.
DMG
What was the answer to your question on the zygote?
Seee Nu...
Seee Nu ...
Seeeeeeeee Nuuuuuuuuu ....
IS.
THE.
IMAGE.
THAT.
OF.
A.
PERSON.
OR NOT?
Don't hide behind a Kay Dub "But shouldn't 'it' have".
Stand on your own two flat feet bra.
KW,
Answer? I'm waiting for you all to go find it and read it for yourself. Not hard to find. When someone makes an actual stab at it, rather than some ideological side step, I'll chime in and continue my line of reasoning.
"but on the issue of taking ACTION on topics of concern to all of us, he is right. Here is a link to the Center for Food Safety." M
Head Fake Mahndisa.
All this "OK DV! But let's take some Action" ... is a little premature.
When DV started this quest ya'll pork eaters dismissed the dangers of cloned meat, Genetically Modified Foods, Vaccines and Global Warming Lies as extremist "conspiracy theories" derived from Lyndon Larouche.
Nowwwwwwww ...
That shit is undeniable ...
You talking about: "Well ... WHAT ACTIONS are we going to take!"
Pump your brakes.
It took a year to get folks to spit cloned pork out of their mouths. (And some of ya'll aint even done that yet).
I know for a fact some of DV.Net regulars / lurkers STILL vaccinated their babies after what they learned here.
Talking about "Ahhh DV. Man. My wife and mother-in-law trippin!"
(I aint going to say no names Bra Law or Bra R.)
So hold off with the "What to do it about it attitude" for a minute.
You can't handle the action until you understand the threat. You don't yet. So hold on.
Mahndisa.
I don't know where you are getting your information. But whomever is telling you "most food is not genetically modified" needs to put the pipe down.
"Whether genetically modified (GM) foods are beneficial or harmful is still controversial. Most foods we eat may contain ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs)--everything from baby formula and food to our dairy to even our meat. If you live in Europe, avoiding GM foods is easier since laws require labeling. However in the US and Canada food manufacturers are not required to label if their food is genetically modified or not. As such, here are some guidelines for steering clear of GM foods in your diet, if that is your choice."
3 days DeeVee - keep counting...,
the debate was about abortion - and as has been pointed out to you repeatedly - abortion doesn't apply to infants.
{unless you're in India or China where it's been going gangbusters for quite some time now.}
"the debate was about abortion"
This is not a debate.
This is an image.
Of a child.
I asked you if it is also the image of a person.
You refuse to answer because it reveals the absurdity of your assertions about "biological globs" and references to obscure dogma which you interpret to mean people aren't people until the reach a certain age.
CNu ... for the 6th time.
Is this the image of a person?
I refuse to answer because I wanted to hear exactly what skewed motives you had for trying to change the subject, exaggerate, or otherwise take the debate in a direction more to your propagandistic liking.
Having demonstrated your boundless capacity for "bad faith" discussion, and your generalized aversion to the pursuit of truth, it's always best to wait and see what angle you're attempting to play before committing to an answer that you will repetitively exploit in service to some or other larooshian big lie.
Whether or not the image is that of a person is an observable truth. The truth is not relative.
It is unequivocal.
Please don't shape your answer ... in an effort to win a debate.
Whether the image is that of a child or not - speaks for itself. Regardless of the "debate".
For the 7th time CNu:
Is the image that of a person?
You refuse to answer because it reveals the absurdity of your assertions about "biological globs" and references to obscure dogma which you interpret to mean people aren't people until the reach a certain age.
I refuse to answer because a "person" is a very specific thing - requiring the existence of a "persona" - and the existence of a persona cannot be determined from an image.
Had you asked me, "is this a person yet?" I would answer you very specifically that "I don't know" - however - under the laws of every state in the union she is considered a person and should be dealt with accordingly, and, as a father of and teacher of quite a few children myself, I would surely treat her as such.
Here is an image of a living, though persistently vegetative man. Is there any persona there any longer to speak of?
{oh, and just to be completely clear - a zygote or a foetus is NOT a child, a person, or anything other than a potential - and - it is so treated under the law - and - it's potential is exclusively determined by the pregnant women whose life or death decision it is whether or not to bring said "blog of cells" to term}
"I refuse to answer because a "person" is a very specific thing - requiring the existence of a "persona" - and the existence of a persona cannot be determined from an image." CNu
Then if the possibility exists that this image is not the image of a person ... of what else may it be an image?
does the man in the persistently vegetative state, with no hope of resuscitation, qualify as a person - according to the fuzzy logic you're attempting to perpetrate?
"fuzzy logic you're attempting to perpetrate?" CNu
lol.
logic? perpetrate?
I simply asked a question.
You got all uncomfortable.
Relax.
"does the man in the persistently vegetative state, with no hope of resuscitation, qualify as a person"?
Yes.
He qualifies as a person in a 'persistently vegetative state, with no hope of resuscitation'.
CNu,
I ask for the 8th time:
IS.
THE.
IMAGE.
THAT.
OF.
A.
PERSON.
OR NOT?
If the child "might" not be a person ... what might she be?
lol,
you can keep asking till you're blue in the face as far as I'm concerned.
sheeeeeeiiitttt......, your name DeeVee, not Daddy!
Pulling the plug on the life support systems on which that persistently vegetative person depends, would that constitute the murder of a "person"?
Oh, and is a zygote or a foetus a "person" by your imagistic definition?
Ahhhhh ... CNu scared.
Damnnnn Homey.
You used to be the mannnn Homey.
you funny brah..,
with all the tools of imagistic propaganda at your disposal, on.your.home.court, and given all the advantages to you that that entails, - I have through internally consistent and fact-based textual commentary alone - managed to strip you of any conceivable facade of objectivity or truthfulness.
at this point, don't be surprised if you come home one afternoon only to be greeted by Mrs. Vesey and the happy little Veseys and the smell of frying pork chops as they lead you to your study where I'll be sipping an ice cold cerveza and paging through your Lyndon H. LaRouche approved library of Henry Makow and David Livingstone texts.
DenmarkVesey.net is school for DenmarkVesey.
Oh Come Now Levar Malthus.
That Kansas Home Grown must be reacting with the chemicals in the cloned pork and genetically modified macaroni and cheese inhibiting your seratonin uptake inhibitors and dopamine hegemony.
The Vesey children will never do anything that causes men to grow titties.
;-)
I mean.
Does one ... really need to "debate" such a thing?
LOL.
Of course not.
So yes .. My Pork Eating Friend ... After asking 9 times ... your non answer reveals ... the absurdity of your Freemasonic Negro Voodoo that a child is "sometimes" not a person - speaks for itself.
My non-answer reveals nothing more than my unwillingness to play along with your fuzzy-logic propaganda DeeVee.
Your non-answers - OTOH - show you out to be the deceitful trickster you practice (and often succeed at) being.
But then Larouche wouldn't have you applying The discipline of improv in religion, music and struggle. to his old tired crypto-fascist tropes - if you weren't talented at it.
You can fool some people all of the time (all your little slightly off-balance-assed imps) - but you can never fool CNu.
Your non-answers - OTOH -
Ohhhhh Levarrrrrrrrrr
^^ Simply Look Up Thread^^ my delusional friend.
I answered your questions directly.
And immediately.
"Yes" the image of the man in the "vegetative" state IS a "person".
See.
That's how men do it.
They fuggin answer the question.
Seriously dude.
I read somewhere that the pigs are legally insane by the time they are herded into the factory for slaughter. Some people believe the chemicals they release prior to being killed infests the meat and ultimately the people who eat their cloned flesh.
You should really think whether or not you ingest some of those chemicals while that flesh rots in your intestines.
Something is causing you to believe you are making sense.
DV.net is pure. comedy. gold.
Baaades' comment of the week is a toss-up btwn: DV's GMO 2-day week and CNu waiting on DV while Mrs V cooks up pork & he's reading Henry Makow.
Priceless!
*dead*
DMG,
Ok I did a little search and this is what I read up, there's too much in the process to be copying and pasting, so understand if I missed sumthin':
Cleavage: rapid cell division that occurs every +-20 hours, till it divides to 16 cells.
Early Blastocyst: more than 100 cells.
Gastrulation: the cells become arranged in 3 distinct germ layers.
By abt the 10th day a zygote implants itself to the wall of the endometrium wall, and only after this successful process does the zygote become and embryo.
So how many zygotes are there in this instance? +100.
Out of those very, very many how many make it to become fully developed human beings?
One that can develop bone cells and grows into a foetus. Or if they're twins or triplets it'd be two or three.
I don't know if that fully answers your question, but I found the process quite interesting and the info's useful to be more cautious about when peops throw around terms.
KW,
That's why I like you. You are able to get down and throw punches but at the end of the day you'll actually go and honestly do your homework.
So, once a zygote is formed (let's just use a few broad terms) the normal course is for it to implant into the uterine lining.
However, ectopic "pregnancies" the zygote may implant in an extrauterine position with about 1.5% implanting in the abdominal cavity often times on the rectum.
The true number of zygotes will probably never be known. Up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are spontaneously aborted...usually before a woman even knows she's pregnant. So sperm could have met egg multiple times per year not resulting in a viable fetus, but rather merely getting flushed down the toilet with the tampon. Some studies say only about 15-50% implant into the uterus. That's after only a 25% chance of sperm meeting egg if a couple has intercourse around the time of ovulation.
That's just implantation. Of the women who actually realize they are pregnant a further 20% miscarry during the first 7 weeks. A pregnancy isn't even considered viable until 24 weeks as the rate of survival before this time is virtually nil...especially if there are no (as our host likes to call us) A-student plantation MD's around to apply our poorly administered wealth of knowledge to saving little junior thugs life.
There are further hurdles the fetus has to cross to get born. I won't bore you, if you want to read further I suggest emedicine.com or an obstetrics book.
You still there Scott? Still think personhood at conception? You want to be the one prosecuting a mother who has an ectopic pregnancy growning on her bowels about to kill her?
DV, I got my information from the CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY. You need to read what they wrote, which you clearly did NOT. They are an advocacy group that does the research and fights MONSANTO. I think you miss the point. They surely admit that one should avoid the Big Four; soy, corn, cotton and canola (rapeseed), and if you eat tropically, avoid papaya. Other than that, I thought the brochure was clear.
I've been concerned about the food supply for a very long time, regarding what I eat and how my family eats. And I know everyone on this blog is too:) That is why I pointed to the document. If ever there was an NGO that I'd trust given their track record and knowledge of what's going on with our food, it'd be them. See the site before you go on rambling like that will ya?
M.
M.
Sista.
"avoid the Big Four; soy, corn, cotton and canola"
Do you hear yourself?
Do you have any idea how much of our food supply is comprised of corn?
soy?
Take my word for it.
It's beyond "most".
DV yes I am aware that we have tons of corn products in processed and refined foods. I don't eat processed and refined foods anymore, so what do I have to worry about?
^^ Simply Look Up Thread^^ my delusional friend.
I answered your questions directly.
And immediately.
"Yes" the image of the man in the "vegetative" state IS a "person".
See.
That's how men do it.
They fuggin answer the question.
Seriously dude.
lol,
uh.., Larooshifer,
did you conveniently forget the zygote/foetus kwestins that kicked off all the subject changing squirming and manipulations motivating this thread in the very first place?
mebbe them chia seeds and that nasty looking Scotts turf-builder smoothie you swig for breakfast are sprouting little green weeds through YOUR melon.phukking.head?!?!?
Naaaaahhhhh
Nice Try Titty Man.
But before we get into "zygotes" & "mitochondria" & "photons" ...
For the 9th time:
Is the image of the little baby girl ... a person?
"See.
That's how men do it.
They fuggin answer the question."
Yes, indeed we do. Except that you just admitted that YOU AIN'T NO MAN.
You have NEVER, NOT ON ONE OCCASSION, EVER, EVER, EVER DIRECTLY ANSWERED A QUESTION I POSED.
NADA.
So why you getting on Cnu?
We can check the archives?
Why is anybody surprised that these radical autonomists define personhood WITHOUT EVER actually defining personhood?
Cats act like we can't erase lines and draw them again.
The best that science has to offer on personhood???
Nothing!!!
So start with conception BECAUSE it is the beginning...
And all the potential for personhood is there, unquestionably.
And so the only thing between potential personhood and personhood is the radical or sensible will of the mother.
These cats choose the radical will cuz birds of a feather flock together...
That, or they're emasculated feminists?
Thordaddy,
I don't usually talk to you, or even acknowledge that you breath my air on my planet....but I just gotta say this:
MOTHERFUCKER...SHUT THE FUCK UP, WITH THAT TIRED, LAME-ASS, OVERUSED, ONE-SIZE FITS ALL, MEANINGLESS RADICAL-GODDAMN-AUTONOMY BULLSHIT YOU PULL OUT OF YOUR FESTERING MONKEY ASS ON EVERY MOTHERFUCKING SUBJECT.
Damn you are sorry! Enough. Think of something new to say, other than some lame ass rhyme. Your mother lock you in your room or something?
@Rig,
"I was heartened to find out the following things:
FRUITS & VEGETABLES
Very few fresh fruits and vegetables for sale in the U.S. are genetically modified."
How do you know? FDA says that Food companies don't have to tell you if the product is GMO or not.
Only about 40% of people in the U.S. know that some of the foods they are buying and eating are genetically modified (GM), according to a new survey conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), an industry group funded by food, beverage and agricultural industries.
Additionally nearly 1 out of 4 people INCORRECTLY believes that such foods are not being SOLD in the United States according to the Survey.
The US ruling is a source of enormous global controversy in regards to not having to disclose if the fruits and veggies they sell are GMO or not. Environmental and consumer groups have demanded that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) follow the lead of the European Union, Japan and other nations by requiring labels on GM foods to allow consumers to know what they are buying.
The U.S. government claims that such mandatory food labels are not necessary because genetically modified food 'poses no inherent safety risk'.
So that means that their is no labeling, testing or regulation that is required to be sold here.
Back in 1992 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined that genetically engineered (GE) foods are in most cases 'the same as or substantially similar to substances commonly found in food' and thus are not required to undergo specific safety tests prior to entering the market.
The FDA has refused to require labeling of genetically engineered foods, despite overwhelming American support for mandatory labeling. Some food companies are now voluntarily taking action by labeling certain products or ingredients "non-gmo", which means "made without genetically modified organisms" but many are not.
The U. S. will soon be one of the only country in the world which does NOT require labeling of genetically engineered food.
Australia, July 2000, passed legislation requiring the labeling of genetically engineeredfoods. The European Union, in September 1998, passed legislation requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Japan passed legislation to require labeling of genetically engineered foods in April 2000, which went into effect in 2001. The Russian government requires labeling of genetically engineered foods as of January 2000. Hong Kong has legislation requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods which was overwhelmingly approved by Legislative Council in January 2000. South Korea has legislation requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods which went into effect in 2001. So does Taiwan.
So if I can buy GM bananas from South America and them sell them in the US.... Who will stop or regulate me?
HW Just read the site. Yes, I am aware of much of what you've said. I would say that the Center for Food Safety has done more research on this topic than you and I combined. Since they are an organization that is taking ACTION against big guys like Monsanto, I think what they have to say has credence.
On the other hand, you are right; it still makes more sense to buy certified organic and free range then you don't have to worry about the possibility of GMO's. Well, ostensibly. BUT cross pollination seems like a bitch in the long run. That is, a GMO tomato plant could cross pollinate with a non GMO plant and what would their offspring be called? And how should it be packaged in the store? At some point, cross contamination will be a bigger issue and NO food we eat will be safe...
With that said, what solutions can we offer people who don't have the money to eat free range meat? I must confess that I don't always buy free range meats but I ALWAYS buy ORGANIC MILK and ORGANIC veggies and fruit. But let's be honest; when you have a family of four and have to pay upwards up $7.99 a pound for meat, it makes a nigga cringe somewhat.
I've found some good meats that I get at the local store that aren't certified free range, but are from local ranchers. Sometimes the beaurocratic red tape that farmers and ranchers undergo to get the certification is time consuming and costly. I get some of my fruit and veggies from a fruit stand down the road a bit from my house and they aren't certified organic but they are in review to GET THEIR CERTIFICATION. This is good for the consumers because their prices are cheaper but they swear that they grow organically but just need to finish the paperwork and they expect that to take another couple of years.
Trust me Rig, I feel your pain. I don't want to believe "THAT EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY :)" , However with new laws coming into effect that will almost ban you from catching your own food(fishing-posted earlier) etc., etc., and growing your own produce, and like you said the ultimate chess move of "cross contamination", it seems just a matter of time that we will all be eating the GMO poisons.
However for now, I try to focus on what can I buy locally. Whole foods has become conspicuous :). The more local you can buy , the cheaper and less poisonous the food will be, is what I have come across in my fact findings. You and I know that it was just a matter of time before the Organic movement would be co-opted, therefore the certification process that you talked about is more Gov. intervention that will drive the prices thru the roof and also be a "con" in the end. For example my guy at trader Joes told me that they lie about the free range eggs. All they have to do is technically open the door on the cage, to hell if the chicken comes out or not. Most of them don't -they can't walk. I think at the end of day we will just have to certify for ourselves where the hell did this product come from and what did you use in it Mr. Local? That is the direction that I am heading in. BTW, I did some research on the milk and they said organic or not -pasteurized milk is toxic. Raw only. Your thoughts?
Hang in there on the free rage meats... we went to a local grass fed guy and he was throwing away the ox tails...Cheap! I seem to be having luck with very cheap grass fed meats because we have lots farms near by.
rotflmbao...,
there.he.go!!!
trying to gas up thordaddy.
Sorry DeeVee, that imp already got slaughtered....,
Actually CNu.
My Favorite White Boy has been spanking your ass for a minute.
You know me. I always pull for the team with the black quarterback.
But I can't lie.
Dude really exposed you with the Radical Autonomy meme.
Cat stuck to his guns. Weathered your usual ad hominem and laid his cards quite flat.
For example:
He calls you on your failure to define "personhood".
Your response?
More fake laughter and nerdish insults.
Why not just ... Define personhood.
I asked you was the image of the child also an image of a person.
After 38 posts ... you still haven't answered.
Why? You are more afraid of losing an argument than you are interested in uncovering a truth.
The shitty part about ... is that you are afraid to lose an argument that may require you revisit the murder of unborn children.
You would rather run with a rationalized lie ... than experience that prospect.
That Freemasonic Negro Voodoo is some powerful shit.
{SMH}
Exactly what kind of lame brain does that tired $2.00 pimp-rap work on?
Seriously?!?!?
"come on baby, it's us vs. these tricks and johns"
"nerds, squares, and plantation negros can't understand the game, can't be in this life"
Get it through your head DeeVee.
All-a-y'all's shit boils down to purely subjective personal belief, and more or less artful appeals to the same.
No matter how hard you grind.
No matter how hard your little less facile imps grind as unwitting proxies on your behalf.
99% of your shit requires an a priori suspension of disbelief.
sheeeeiiiiittt......,
here lately,
you.have.become.one.of.the.most.truth.denying.muhphuggah.on.the.Internet.
I understand.
your sources and methods have been fully exposed,
you startin to get a little frantic.
best slow your role son.
a frantic pimp runs the very real risk of losing everything.
DMG...
Whoo-whee...
Boy, u all hot n crazy
Bow tuh the "mommy" killas
N call ya self manly...
Mandate injectin' vaccines
AND SAY I'M THE ENEMY???
Boy, u atheist!!!
Means u don't practice doctorin',
FAITHFULLY!!!
Disagracefully, yur disservice make ya nervous
Wonder if ya really uh Marine???
Sound lika mercenary,
N tuh killin' things!!!
Or definin'm outta existence
The Radical Autonomist's game...
U detached...
I just give uh name...
Don't hate lil' nigel...
It still stay the same,
U the accomplice
N I ain't the one tuh blame,
Fo' puttin' u tuh shame...
Thank you for capitalizing Marine. I skipped over the rest of the chin dribble. Your words tend to give me gas...and I don't feel like lighting matches all night.
"No matter how hard you grind. No matter how hard your little less facile imps grind as unwitting proxies on your behalf.99% of your shit requires an a priori suspension of disbelief sheeeeiiiiittt......, here lately, you.have.become.one.of.the.most.truth.denying.muhphuggah.on.the.Internet.I understand. your sources and methods have been fully exposed, you startin to get a little frantic.
best slow your role son. a frantic pimp runs the very real risk of losing everything." CNu
Let's translate that from Pork to English:
"Of course DV. The image of the child is also the image of a person. Now, I'm not ready to say that a fOetus is a person, yet. But, the child is OBVIOUSLY a person.
Yet, if we showed that picture to 1,000 people, 999 of them would identify the image of the child as that of a person."
DMG said...
"Thank you for capitalizing Marine."
How Plantation Negro can a cat get?
He won't capitalize God but he insists everyone else capitalize Marine.
Boy Massaaaaaaa trained this Negro here.
Craig...
If you seperate the subjective from objective???
How'd you do it???
By yourself or with the collective???
Or the consensus???
You just go with the flow...
Trying to remain undetected...
But you big and fat headed,
And things need to be "corrected"
Let the rejects be rejected...
This ain't deep, it's reflexive...
Don't take no thought either
Part-n-parcel of the passive-aggressive
Mindset that evidence the liberal obsession...
Absolute freedom means otha cats get death sentence...
And what is CN You to do???
Nothing, dawg...
NOTHING!
"But you big and fat headed,
And things need to be "corrected"" TD
LOL
My favorite White Boy is a BEAST!
HW, I have mixed feelings about the pasteurized milk. I consume raw milk as medicine for some fungal issues I've had and within two days, it completely eradicates the fungus. But you have to keep it up by taking probiotics and doing the raw milk one half gallon once a week. Since half a gallon is $8.99 at the supermarket and the nearest RAW dairy is 90 miles away, that is another expense but I do it because it is better then taking the doctor prescribed pills and anti inflammation pills which have caused more problems then benefit in the past!
HOWEVER, on a daily basis I consume certified organic pasteurized and sometimes slow cream top pasteurized milk. I don't have a problem with the pasteurized milk; it is just a heating process. HOWEVER I DO not like homogenized milk. I think that homogenization fundamentally alters too much about the milk and it does not contain as many benefits. But if the store is out of the slow pasteurized cream top milk, I will get the organic pasteurized and homogenized milk (to my chagrin at times). All in all, I used to be lactose intolerant and one day I decided to mess with only organic milk. I NEVER EVER EVER had a problem with dairy again. And I tested this by drinking some non organic stuff and I immediately got sick and vomited from it. Interesting how adding the extra chemicals makes my body reject it!
Your "favorite white boy" was exposed a long time ago as just another wannabe practitioner of the "because I said so" pimping game too.
"Because I said so" and ad populi arguments about what 999 peasants think or say - have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth.
The truth is quite simple.
Outside of organized crime, no one practices retroactive abortion in the united states. (and the organized criminals don't focus on children, they focus on adult competitors in their sundry organized criminal enterprises)
So in its totality, this entire thread has been a straw man that was fully exposed the minute I stated that I comply with the law in letter, and as a father, in spirit - with regard to the potential personhood of the child pictured.
You however, still haven't answered KW's question about zygotes and foetuses, which are NOT treated as persons under the law or popular consensus.
Under the law and popular consensus, and in keeping with my own commonsense convictions (as backed up by the facts provided by DMG) zygotes and foetuses are not persons.
However, pregnant women are without exception persons who have every right to control their own bodies and decide whether or not to invest their biological, psychological, social, and economic capital bringing a potential human being to term.
Thankfully KW and DMG addressed the facts concerning zygotes and foetuses because you nipple-head wannabe pimp muhphuggaz didn't have the courage of your "convictions" to do so.
The obvious argument you cowardly wannabe pimps are avoiding, is the argument for forced birth which is the unpleasant crux of all your posturing.
Why not just outright express the truth of what you believe, namely, you want to socially impose forced birth on women whether they choose to give birth, or not.
You wannabe pimps seek a medieval return to the enslavement of women as forced birth machines - making your game obvious, straight-up, simple, and plain to all but the most credulous and moronic.
Hey fool...
Woman are already being "forced" to give birth by fathers with way more steel than you. So "forcing" women to give birth is irrelevant. What is relevant are two simple assertions that get to the truth of the matter.
Your "objective" truth asserts:
A mother has a "fundamental right" TO KILL her child in utero.
My subjective personal opinion asserts:
A mother DOES NOT HAVE a "fundamental right" TO KILL her child in utero.
Now...
-Who's assertion needs further explanation?
-Who's assertion doesn't require any further thinking in deciding its truthfulness?
-Who's assertion is self-evidently true?
Now we can see that the only recourse is simple when one wants to perpetuate a falsehood to secure their autonomy.
You just perpetuate the falsehood.
You will the falsehood.
You call the falsehood "objective truth" and say its religiously grounded.
You repeat and never quit because YOUR AUTONOMY IS COUNTING ON IT.
Time out.
I respect your ambition Willie, but you got to have vision.
Great line.
DMG,
Thank you. This is school, so you gotta do your homework ; )
Thordaddy,
Potential personhood does not begin at conception; given the info DMG & I posted, re-read it like some non-radical autonomist was telling you how things work inside a woman's body and why it can be problematic to say this is a potential person.
DV
If you co-sign 100 with your fav. White Boy, do it right and post a pic of his zygote asking is this 'potential personhood'...with all the relevant details of the biological process in small print, of course.
Ask a cat what time it is ...
He tells you how to build a clock.
Is the image of a child ... also the image of a person?
Instead of a simple Yes or No ... we get:
"So in its totality, this entire thread has been a straw man that was fully exposed the minute I stated that I comply with the law in letter, and as a father, in spirit - with regard to the potential personhood of the child pictured."
Whaaaaa?
Kay Dub I will answer 50 questions the moment I get a clear answer to my 1st question.
IS
THE
BABY
A
PERSON?
What do you think Kay Dub?
The reluctance / fear / polysyllabic mumbling is telling.
Why such cognitive dissonance on such a SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD QUESTION?
Damn.
Excuse me Kay Duuuub
But this is some unprecedented Punk Ass Shit.
DV
C'mon magne, laugh a little, breathe some, smoke a fat one. Playin' prosecutor's got you all charged up so much that you forget, I answered you on Sunday. Yes the cute li'l girl is a person, a human person unless that image is computer generated.
KW,
First, you must acknowledge that you assert that the zygote is not a person or even contains potential personhood FOR A REASON...
That reason is simple and straightforward.
Your belief maximizes your autonomy.
My belief restrains my autonomy.
Within the zygote, all potential must exist. Its environment -- in evolutionary-speak, the main mechanism of action -- the womb, is out of his control and firmly in the hands of intelligent designers.
The fact that a mother's reproductive process rejects most potential in order to select particular personhood in a particular zygote says nothing about her "fundamental right" to kill her child in utero.
To say personhood isn't in the zygote is to simply say unscientific things. This doesn't mean unscientific things are always false. It's just saying your unscientific assertion seems untenable and false.
Kaaaaaaay Dub. (I luv this woman)
That's cool sista.
But look at the post again.
It says "Well CNu ... It's Been A Week. Is This A Person Or Not?"
It doesn't "Well Kay Dub ... It's Been A Week. Is This A Person Or Not?"
Because you answered the question with a simple ... "yes".
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHASHA!!!!
rilly-do
you betta school yo ho tho f'sho - DeeVee.
dis dumb muhphukka completely out-of-pocket and making straight up GORILLA pimp manifesto proclamations.
Woman are already being "forced" to give birth by fathers with way more steel than you. So "forcing" women to give birth is irrelevant. What is relevant are two simple assertions that get to the truth of the matter.
all your carefully turned out, benzo/brioni/caca-brownie pimpin game just got flushed straight.down.the.toilet by one ignorant, knuckle-dragging hoodlum you been carrying in special ed.
your favorite white boy done single-handedly set the LaRooshian program back generations....,
Sgt Vernon Waters comes to mind here; "Do you know the damage one ignorant white boy can do?"
^^ Pork dementia.
using the expression "pork" as a euphemism - as in "porked DeeVee in his little narrow, monkey ass...,"
The very quintessence of Blackness demonstrated once again, i.e., the discipline of masterful improvisation in the context of overwhelming disadvantage and constraint...,
CNu is CHOICH for DenmarkVesey!!!
Come on Craig,
Leave that brother alone, his lips all poked out and I believe that moisture running down his face are the beginnings of tears.
He about to go run tell mama on you...that (huff) you (whimper) hurt his (sob) feeeeeeeeelings (sniffle).
Craig,
Once you're done hiding behind the power of "female" and her power to decide the fate of her child, can you explain why any male would suddenly become responsible for the decision of said "female" if she decided against abortion?
Your stand is quite naked. Let the female abort if she wills it AND let the female pass on her sacred duty to an unwitting male if she so desires.
You're an emasculated feminist, straight sell out or both.
In the mind of KCNulan these 100M Chinese women made a CHOICE to disconnect the gestating human form which was receiving nutrients from their womb walls because they were females acted in a way that KCNulan is comfortable with.
http://functionalculture.blogspot.com/2010/03/over-100m-chinese-women-make-choice-to.html
In the mind of KCNulan 1 or 100M....its all a matter of CHOICE to remove a dependent clump of tissue.
If the clump in question were y.o.u. Ronald, it would be a matter of preference...,
Post a Comment