So, which part? A foot? A lung? An elbow?

wanna see a trick ?

"Looks like an elbow to me." -VagabondSouffle

"Looks like a Jew to me so I'll have to kill it" - Meme-osis_Master

FAIL, again,
Dude, you are just revealing your own biases. I am SO pro Israel, I have an honorary yarmulke.

"Some of muh best fwiends is...."

Get tha fuq out my face with you bs, you mentally incapacitaded twit.

Can't wait for your alt to leap in and prove your idiocy as legit by saying the same exact stupid thing.

Looks like a resin doll to me.

Because thats what it is.

A baby is his/her own body inside the womans body. It is not part of the womans body.

Same thing happens to any human left unattended and cared for up until they're old enough to care for themselves. So if humans that require help to live outside the womb are fair game for murder, the field opens up considerably to include mentally ill, handicap, elderly, etc. Good luck with that. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Same thing happens to any sperm left unattended and cared for up until they're dried up and crusty. So if humans that require help to live outside the womb are fair game for murder, the field opens up considerably to include sperm and eggs. Good luck with that. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Sperm doesn't grow. Neither do eggs. Only after they have joined do they constitute a new creation... there's the line.

Human beings don't get rights until they are born... there's the line.

Now...where is that stated? That distinction is where the debate is, not around all the other red herrings. The question is, when does personhood begin, and what constitutes a person?

We already made 3rd and late 2nd term abortions to satisfy your savage notion that a fully developed fetus constitutes a person. Then you took 1st term abortions. The only people moving the field goal are on the right.

So ask yourself how the goal posts moved, and where were they to begin with. Seems they're moving back to their point of origin, the place, from which the left moved them to begin with.

No, I call it a compromise.

I see. So what you constitute as winning is only having things your way while ignoring all the reasons why that law existed in the first place. How very consistent of you.

50 million+ babies aborted, most simply out of trying to fix a mistake. That may be your definition of winning, just not mine.

"a fully developed fetus constitutes a person" is the exact opposite of savage.

Actually, they have a sheep that was artificially created on an artificial womb. With that shitty attitude women will get replaced if they refused to do the very purpose they got created for. This is what humanity is heading to. With that shitty attitude it is unavoidable. "In the year 6565
You won't need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube"... actually much sooner.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant

Thank you for proving my point.

You don't care about human beings. You're worried about eugenics.

Guess what? I agree that eugenics is bad! But we're not talking about eugenics. We're talking about abortion.

Pffft, I am pro life. I don't know where you get that i do not care about human beings from anything i said. You seriously need some reading comprehension classes.

Your point is that women only exist to make babies. And that if we carry on like this it'll lead to eugenics. I don't agree with either of those points. The reason why I think you don't really care about human beings is because your concern isn't about saving lives but preventing artificially made life.

In science, giving birth is their natural role for preservation of the species. In christian, judean religion is also a very important role they where designed for. All I am saying is, that if they do not want to do their role they will get replaced. Again my point was not that woman exist to just make babies, they have many other roles. You do not see female animals complaining... that is the very basics right there.

"that if they do not want to do their role they will get replaced"

I'mma gonna Quote you on that

Yes the role dealing with the context of this message, that is the role of giving birth. They have other roles, but those other roles are out of context here. Again, reading comprehension.

"that if they do not want to do their role they will get replaced"

Dumbass, bad enough you have to use alts, and yes, that's a strain on that miniscule piece of fecal matter lodged betwixt your flapping Dumbo ears, but can you cop someone else's lines that aren't the ones I already used here yesterday?

Idiot.

ROFL. MWAWAWA. You must be very lonely. Feel sorry for you.

You're surely not, with your instant BFF who's 'not' your alt and shares the same limited cranial capacity in the nether reaches of your upper intestines.

Dude what circus do you work for, I want to see you perform live? I well pay major cash to see you perform because you are hilarious!

I know, right?

You're gonna love 2nd grade when (or if) you finally make it to it.
Even the short yellow bus will look brighter for you.

And they say fetal alcohol syndrome is a bad thing.

Your point was to take it out of the womans body. My point is that slowly but surely women will be taken out of the picture. Your context skills = epic fail.

So what?
Look on any document you have for yourself and you will see Date-Of-Birth. That's the moment you legally became an individual citizen. Until that time you were legally part of your mother.
Laws by necessity have practical components.
Legally, a woman using IVF won't be charged with mass murder for disposing of her unused fertilized eggs. And a one-year-old doesn't have the right to vote.

Killing a pregnant women can get you charged with two counts of murder.

So what?
So what?
So killing humans is no big deal to you because of state defined arbitrary timelines? Because the baby is not a citizen, it's OK to murder them? Watch out illegals, this guy thinks it's OK to murder you.

Go look up "straw man".

Close to the entire population of the World would benefit from looking that up.

No it's not. That's a very fair rebuttal. I assume you're fine with hunting illegals then?

You should look it up too. Because that rebuttal should be rebooted back up your butt.

I disagree. Phat brought up citizenship as a necessity to be protected by laws. He implied babies are fair game until the moment of birth when they become citizens.

It seems to me that Phat has no morality and requires laws to keep him in check rather than a moral compass. Lawful evil. Killing an innocent human is wrong, it doesn't matter if the person has citizenship or any other legal status.

Killing anyone who’s innocent is wrong. Human or nonhuman.

Agreed.

Inserting illegals is not a strawman?

What you failed to disagree with is the part about IVF eggs and also the vote for 1 year olds

His argument was about citizenship. Talking about illegals or even foreigners legally in the country are fair topics.

You'll have to enlighten me.

Um, no.

Ditto.

Um, yes.

I found the ivf thing. That's pretty strange...

I thought the law only applied to babies once they had a heartbeat. I've stated the 6 week cutoff should be law multiple times so I'm very happy with that.

I'll admit, I haven't given much thought to test tube babies. I am under the impression that the fertilization occurs artificially and is then quickly implanted into a mother.

Six weeks in an artificial environment is pushing the limits of what should be considered acceptable medical practice, imo, and should be discontinued if that's the case until medicine can continue to provide for the fetus artificially until it becomes developed enough for "birth". A heartbeat constitutes a human life and ending one, even if artificially created, is still homocide and immoral. Recklessly creating a human artificially and ending its life for any reason is wrong.

I can understand why this was not addressed in the bill. It brings up even more ethical and moral dilemmas that would have delayed the passing of this bill. I hope the topic is addressed very soon but I'm glad Alabama passed the bill even if there are issues that still need to be addressed. They have saved countless lives.

So where do your eternal bogeymen, thuh illegalz, fit in this again?

His argument was about citizenship. Talking about illegals or even foreigners legally in the country are fair topics.

If anything, his egg statement was a straw man argument. The hot topic isn't eggs, it's fetus's with a heartbeat.

Still no?

The last sentence is such an overt lie festooned in hypocrisy, you should be ashamed of yourself.

You're wasting my time a lot on this.

I know what it means, Mr. literal, it wasn't a serious argumentative point, only illustrative.

Hate to break it too you, but that wasn't mommy getting fatty around her tummy from drinking beer.

Ok, in your case, perhaps it was (at least partially), and that would account for the fetal alcohol syndrome and the resulting lowering of the IQ you've been so kind to share.

Anyways, umbilical cords, amniotic fluid, wombs, and that fetus within beg to differ with your utterly *jean luc voice* face-palming-on-stun ridiculous meme.

Also, despite what Maury may have told your da, the test results do NOT apply to your mum. Not only is 50% of your DNA 100% hers (a little extra, to be precise, on account of that Y chromosome coming up slightly shorter), the DNA in the Mitochondria is 100% hers, and without it your cells wouldn't function and you would be dead like really early on.

On behalf of those who are unable to deny the exceeedingly obvious fact that the act of killing an unborn baby, fetus, setdrondixjiangznozhuxiskus or whatever any anally retentive diction hair splitter wants to call it, it is, yes, by design and intention, the act of killing it so that it can get killed and no longer be alive because it got killed because that's what abortionists coincidentally do when aborting an unborn not-yet-birth-certificated-infant thingy in order to kill it and make it dead, please do not make any more asstoot announcements.

See, this is why not only is abortion murder, but it is sadly necessary too, because:
1. There are way too many humans.
2. There are way too many stupid humans.

#culltheherdofanyonewithlessthanaonehundredandfortyiq

#HowGlobalistOfYou.

#thegiantstorkcanflyglobally

No caps in hashtags, you silly twit.

50% of the baby's DNA is 100% the mother's?

Wow that's deep. Here's another sage piece of wisdom.

5% of your downvoted comments are 100% mine.

Scroll up and have a looksie.

You can DV 100% of my comments, fanboi, I got Vals to spare.

Your ignorance is only superseded by your stupidity.
Umbilical cord-baby, amniotic fluid-not tissue so neither, wombs-who is aborting wombs?,
-
And "beg to differ with your utterly *jean luc voice* face-palming-on-stun ridiculous meme."
Which must be your way of saying completely factual and true. Otherwise you would have simply refuted it by naming what part of the woman's body it is, genetically distinct.
-
"Also, despite … derp... really early on."
Ooooo, sorry, 50% is not a match. I know you are trying, but you can't argue against facts. They don't care about how you feel on the issue.
-
"See, this is why not only is abortion murder, but it is sadly necessary too, because:
1. There are way too many humans.
2. There are way too many stupid humans."
Since murder is unjustified killing, abortion in most cases is completely unjustified, and most definitely killing, it is therefore murder. Damn, that fact and logic thing keeps debunking you like a clock ticking. As far as 1&2, you could best help this by doing yourself in while hosting a party with like minded individuals ala Jonestown. That would help nicely.

Do you need to Google "murder" to verify its meaning and require a notarized statement from me to show your dumb dumb face that when I said "murder" I said "murder" because I said "murder"?

There's no reading between the lines there, son, you done read what I said the way that I said it because I said it.

Then again, given your wonderfully deprived so-called knowledge on basic reproduction, no surprise that basic comprehension is not in your basic skill set.

But allow me to say it as simple as possible for you to get it:
Abortion. kills.

mkay?

You can repeat a lie as much as you want, and it doesn't make it true.
Murder IS unjustified killing. Abortion is unjustified killing*. Therefore abortion is murder. FACT.
*- in almost all cases.

How is that a lie, I mean, other than in your stupidly convoluted attempt to disagree at all costs?

Idiot.

Derp, I've explained many times, dim wit, murder and killing are not the same thing.

And you don't have to sign your posts at the bottom, your idiocy is identified at the top.

Actually murder IS killing.

Your stupidity amazes me.

It's not my reading comprehension that is lacking, and thank you, I've been WAITING for your dumb ass to eventually get there.
-
"... which your lack of simple reading comprehension does indicate."
-VS

Where the problem lies is in YOUR comprehension, period.

You said
"See, this is why not only is abortion murder, but it is sadly necessary too,..."
-VS

Which you were too stupid to realize means that abortion ISN'T murder (which of course it IS) because the state of being necessary IS justification, which no longer makes it unjustified killing, which no longer makes it murder.

Damn you are dumb.

Oh, you silly twit, do try again?

War is murder too, but still sometimes - eh, check back with me when your dear sweet bone spurred God Trump goes to war with Iran because in 1979 they took some hostages.
Hey, maybe he'll get them free after these 4 decades waiting, yes?

btw, glad to see you finally DID read what I said instead of pulling it out of the cue cards jammed up your ass. AND you found something to be able to STILL fit it into your scripted narrative. See, it weren't all that bad now, was it?

Glad to see I got you this riled up on a Saturday night, makes your beer run worth it, ya?

*hugs*

Idiot.

Murder is not killing. Murder requires intent. Killing does not. Your stupidity has yet to fail to amaze me.

Screenshot. That's a definite keeper.

You can kill someone by accident, on a car crash. A soldier can kill an enemy soldier to protect his country. Both cases intention was not present. When you murder someone you plan it and you see it through. Like your idol Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer. You don't even know the difference, yet you come here to try to lecture about it. You, my friend, you are special... bus special.

Oh, no, altboi brought up Jeffrey Dahmer. Such stunning ferocity. Such triggered mechanism on overdrive.
Is he like your idol, Dunning Kruger?

ALL murders are acts of killing.
Not all killings are acts of murder.

Can we just keep this to one alt, or are you truly vying for a double pronged shot at biggest idiot around?

You are the single most stupid person on imgflip.
Of course murder is killing, but killing is not necessarily murder.
Damn, are you dumb.

Single would imply single. You make it a double, unless you're second in stupidity to me, which your lack of simple reading comprehension does indicate.

Try reading what I said, S-L-O-W-L-Y, you colossal f**ktard. You'll catch on.

Just kidding, you won't. Between your script and your astounding degree of obtuseness, you just can't.

"Just because you use an alt to vouch for what an absolute moron you are does not make you sound any less stupid, it only doubles on the dumb, dummy." -Va**nabumSouffle
-
Your paranoia runs as deep as your stupidity. Fauscoval has his own opinion which you are too stupid to understand differs from my own. I said all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.
Once again you expose your vast idiocy. I told you, that you should have quit but your idea to get out of the hole you dug yourself is to dig faster.
So stupid.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself VS, everyone can see how you are now lying and trying to take the position I put forth as your own, and say I'm fascoval so you can put forth another lie, hiding YOUR screwup.
It's all there for everyone to see, you idiot.

Maybe you should dig even faster.

Indeed he does, in fact, his opionions is not only yours, it rips off mine as well, just like you do, so I'll just post his/your reply and mine:

"FascoMeme-o'pis-taster's alt 0 ups 2 h

You can kill someone by accident, on a car crash. A soldier can kill an enemy soldier to protect his country. Both cases intention was not present. When you murder someone you plan it and you see it through. Like your idol Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer. You don't even know the difference, yet you come here to try to lecture about it. You, my friend, you are special... bus special."

"VagabondSouffle 0 ups, <1h

Oh, no, altboi brought up Jeffrey Dahmer. Such stunning ferocity. Such triggered mechanism on overdrive.
Is he like your idol, Dunning Kruger?

ALL murders are acts of killing.
Not all killings are acts of murder.

Can we just keep this to one alt, or are you truly vying for a double pronged shot at biggest idiot around?"

"War is murder too, but still sometimes … derp …"
No, idiot war is not murder, it's killing, so obviously you are still too stupid to understand the difference, EVEN when it is explained to you.
-
"btw, glad to see you finally DID read what I said instead of pulling it out of the cue cards ... was it"
As you are still too stupid to see, and either are willfully ignoring out of embarrassement over your exposed idiocy, here for everyone to see, it's what YOU SAID, the logical consequences of the words you said that I was just WAITING for you to try to shove on me. You are so stupid, you don't even know WHAT you are saying, but of course it's right there for anyone to see and all of imgflip except other Libtards are laughing at you.

You should quit now while you can still make an escape.

"Not only is unjustified killing, unjustified killing, but sometimes it is justified killing" - Imgflip #1 idiot VagabondSouffle

Just because you use an alt to vouch for what an absolute moron you are does not make you sound any less stupid, it only doubles on the dumb, dummy.

Still waiting for you to name which "part" of the woman's body that is.

The baby is called the woman's "reason"

As in, the only "reason" why women are relevant to the jerkoffs in government who see women as baby factories and nothing more.

Some of us disagree.

So, you are saying the part is her reason???
So you are so misogynistic you think women can't reason without being pregnant???
WHAT???
Note: I ask this only because of the comment yours was a reply to.

No.

I'm saying there are people (not just men) in government who THINK the only REASON women exist is to make BABIES.

There entire platform is based on it. It's why homosexuals can't marry or adopt. It takes purpose away from WOMEN.

I'm part of those who disagree with that narrow point of view. You, either wittingly or unwittingly, support their bigoted agenda by falling for their inane propaganda. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say unwittingly. That isn't to say you're stupid. It's not stupid to want to save life. It is quite noble. So I can't exactly label you a misogynist. At least, not with the evidence I've seen so far.

I really don't think it's fair to conflate the idea of wanting to promote human dignity by protecting innocent vulnerable human life with agencies considering women as only baby machines, nor is it wise to dismiss that ideal of protecting aforementioned life simply because it's end results might fuel such twisted agencies agendas.

In this VERY thread.

Fauscovai0 ups, <1h
Actually, they have a sheep that was artificially created on an artificial womb. With that shitty attitude women will get replaced if they refused to do the very PURPOSE they GOT CREATED FOR. This is what humanity is heading to. With that shitty attitude it is unavoidable. "In the year 6565
You won't need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube"... actually much sooner.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant

It's not a conflated idea. It's true. It makes perfect sense. If you want to promote heterosexual couplings ONLY and make sure those babies grow up in a heterosexual environment, then these platforms make perfect sense. The problem is, is that you're using it to target groups of people to take their rights away from them and that is where you'll lose. You can say that they're dismissing the ideal of protecting aforementioned life but you're doing it at THEIR expense. That is what is not fair.

I'm sorry choad, but you are wrong. My ideals and some sick agents ideas might produce the same outcome, by they are not the same thing. BTW, I don't get the point of your "proof on this thread", I didn't deny your assertion, only stated that it was quite different from mine.

Say what you will, but I will continue to defend human rights even as people start changing the definitions of what it means to be humans. What you're doing is wrong and you think you're right and that makes you more dangerous to our species than anything homosexuals or transgenders can potentially pose. I will continue to fight for people's freedom of choice. Including yours.