Quoted from Box A Rox

Cicero, You are the Libertarian promoter on this board, not I.

I would certainly limit the choice of Americans in many areas.  Wouldn't you?  Wouldn't everyone?
Your little play on words is as always, tiresome...

Should we limit the free speech of a certain poster who is obsessed with a play on words about "choice"?  Most certainly!

If you have something to actually contribute, then please do so.  Otherwise... I have better things to do.

Box, you can't even admit that the notion of infecting a human embryo is psychotic BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL HARM IT WILL CAUSE TO THE UNBORN.  You keep on twisting and turning, as you watch you "clump of human cell" argument fall flat on it's face.  Own up to it Box, the reason you wouldn't want to infect a human embryo is because that embryo in many cases will be born, and purposefully infecting the clump of human cells that miraculously turn into a human being, would be a tax on society.  

What do you think of a pregnant women KNOWINGLY having sex with a man she knows is infected with a communicable disease?  Should both parties be legally held accountable for the harm caused to the clump of random human cells if said human cells miraculously become a human being and is infected?

Of course purposely infecting what you so warmly call the "clump of human cells" should not be legally permitted, because in a SANE society, human beings do not purposely do harm to other human beings.  AND THAT INCLUDE THE UNBORN FETUSES.  Whether it be infecting it or terminating it, the unborn deserve the Constitutional protection from those barbarians in society that would purposely do either.

Quoted from CICERO

Box, you can't even admit that the notion of infecting a human embryo is psychotic BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL HARM IT WILL CAUSE TO THE UNBORN.  You keep on twisting and turning, as you watch you "clump of human cell" argument fall flat on it's face.  Own up to it Box, the reason you wouldn't want to infect a human embryo is because that embryo in many cases will be born, and purposefully infecting the clump of human cells that miraculously turn into a human being, would be a tax on society.  

What do you think of a pregnant women KNOWINGLY having sex with a man she knows is infected with a communicable disease.  Should both parties be legally held accountable for the harm caused to the clump of random human cells if said human cells miraculously become a human being and is infected?

Of course purposely infecting what you so warmly call the "clump of human cells" should not be legally permitted, because in a SANE society, human beings do not purposely do harm to other human beings.  AND THAT INCLUDE THE UNBORN FETUSES.  Whether it be infecting it or terminating it, the unborn deserve the Constitutional protection from those barbarians in society that would purposely do either.

Cicero is still stuck on terms.  Let me explain:

1. Human woman:



2. Human zygote



Now to explain the difference...


Never mind.  Cicero sees them as the same.
  For the rest of us, no explanation necessary.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Cicero is still stuck on terms.  Let me explain:

1. Human woman:



2. Human zygote



Now to explain the difference...


Never mind.  Cicero sees them as the same.
  For the rest of us, no explanation necessary.

Thanks for teeing this one up for me box...You couldn't have provided two better examples of women's choice.  

Now lets take a look at Pamela.  As everybody knows, Pamela's huge breasts are a result of voluntary breast augmentation.  She CHOOSE to make her breasts larger.  She allowed a doctor to make incisions into her HUMAN breast tissue(not to be confused with human embryo tissue) and insert silicone implants.  That was her choice, the only person put at risk was herself.  No harm no foul. She can inject toxic chemicals(botox) into her lips to make them swell.  Her choice, she's only harming herself, so again, no harm no fowl.

Now, lets take a look at the "clump of human cells" on the bottom.  

During Pamela's life, Pamela CHOOSE to have sex with Tommy Lee, CHOOSE to get pregnant, then CHOOSE give birth to two children. That's perfectly fine, no harm no foul.  Now, let's say, instead of CHOOSING to having those children, Pamela could have CHOOSE to abort the pregnancies.  This is currently legal in the United State and accepted by all liberals as perfectly acceptable, since it is the woman's body and she can do what she wants with it

But...from what I'm gathering from Box, the one choice he would NOT allow Pamela to do with her "clump of cells" is donate them to medical science and purposely infect the clump of cells with an infectious virus...say...Hepatitis C.  

So lets recap - Pamela Andersen can:

- have breast implants
- get botox injections
- get pregnant and give birth
- get pregnant and abort
but cannot get pregnant and infect a group of cells with an infectious disease in the name of science.
I wonder if she could inject botox into the human embryo tissue since she can inject it into her lip tissue?

Makes perfect sense in the warped mind of the left wing radical.  

So this isn't about abortion, it's about Cicero's fetish to inject a pregnant woman 'needlessly' with a disease for his 'experimental research'.

I won't promote endangering a woman's life needlessly.  If there is an alternative to this dangerous procedure, then what is the point of the procedure, if the ultimate goal is to save lives.

I suppose Cicero could, if he wanted to, rub salt in his eyes too... kind of dumb, and pointless, but since he's so into 'choice', I wouldn't stop him!  It IS his choice.

Again.  If there is an alternative to human testing, I would oppose Cicero's mutilations.  There are standards in clinical trials that protect the subjects health.  Cicero seems to think that those standards are unnecessary.

Lets hope Cicero's campaign to mutilate women's reproductive organs fails.

I defend Ciceros right to free speech even if his words are supplied by dead people.

Maybe Cicero is channeling.

What is Hitler saying to you Cicero?

Quoted Text

Scandal is great entertainment because it allows people to feel contempt, a moral emotion that gives feeling of moral superiority while asking nothing in return.

it is her choice to have her breasts 'injected'
it is her choice to be 'injected'
and it is her choice to remove either one or both

however, being a human she has the choice to inject her mind into the entire equation right from the start before the sperm and ovum EVER touch.....

the 'him' on the other hand....yeah, I'm not to sure about his injection....oh wait....that would be professional sports players....they get injected then look to 'pass it on'.....my mistake

Quoted from IraRotterdam

What is Hitler saying to you Cicero?

Ohhhh...wait...wait...he's channeling...ohh...I hear him...yes...yes...ok...

Hitler says..."In an effort to make the collective American conscience except the killing of their unborn, America has adopted my technique of dehumanizing the jews and convince the otherwise non-violent German population to execute them"....Wait...Wait, he's not finished...Hitler says..."Even I wouldn't stoop so low to propagandize a population into desensitizing them to accept the killing of unborn babies."  

Oh..Wait..Hitler says..."PS..Tell Ira to learn how to use his text color tool"lol

Quoted from Box A Rox

So this isn't about abortion, it's about Cicero's fetish to inject a pregnant woman 'needlessly' with a disease for his 'experimental research'.

I won't promote endangering a woman's life needlessly.  If there is an alternative to this dangerous procedure, then what is the point of the procedure, if the ultimate goal is to save lives.

You're right box, this isn't about abortion, it's about a women's 'choice' to do what she wants with her body.   Choice is every liberals justification for abortion...But now suddenly, the woman's choice to offer those random cells to medical experimentation suddenly is 'needless' and women and that clump of cells need to be protected by law.  But, women don't need to be protected by law from having their tits cut open, their cheek bones restructured, their noses broken and reshaped, the skin on their face pulled tight.  What makes scientific experimentation on her body any different if she chooses?

I don't have a fetish with injecting women with needless disease, I have a fetish with injecting your weak arguments with logic.  Box, you are attempting to reframe the discussion.  This isn't about the procedure, it's about the choice to have the procedure.   This is about A WOMENS RIGHT TO CHOOSE what to do with that pesky clump of cells after the sperm fertilizes the egg.

not all choices in life make either the person(s) involved or not happy/content/fuzzy wuzzy.......it just is....and we just are.....and the choice of men to not let women vote was OK, back then, and the choice to have slaves(at any given time in history or future) is OK for those moments.....why?

BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS AND THAT IS WHAT WE DO.....when we go into FTL and 'jump' through another wormhole and find our ancestors, let me know......TIC......

abortion.....JUST IS....always has been and always will be......and certainly NOT to the disdain of the 'breadwinner'......usually never even known....and that is even with the 'meaning of marriage' as they were taught, behind them....

it sucks for both....and isn't just some willy nilly toss out the garbage....

just like that woman from NYC who has 6 or 8 kids and gave them ALL the same name....I aint taken them in...I cant....shame shame shame on society....is it perfect....NOPE.....never will be....but that's what tequila is for....jmho

Quoted from CICERO

   Choice is every liberals justification for abortion...

A woman should be able to decide if she has to grow a baby, give birth to a baby and raise it for the next 20 years... that is the choice.

The zygote in the above pic is absolutely NOT a human being, I think we all would agree on that (except Cicero)
  It may become a human being, but it isn't one at that stage.

(An Explanation for  Cicero only)
Mashed Pumpkin
Milk
Cinnamon
eggs
spice
etc...  are NOT a Pumpkin pie.  they may be come one some day, but as of yet, they are just ingredients.

One more time for Cicero:
Fenders
motor
gas tank
electrical system
transmission
frame... are not a car, but they may become one some day.

A zygote, a clump of human cells, may become a human being some day (most do not) but as yet it is just the ingredients of a human being.

Quoted from Box A Rox

A woman should be able to decide if she has to grow a baby, give birth to a baby and raise it for the next 20 years... that is the choice.

The zygote in the above pic is absolutely NOT a human being, I think we all would agree on that (except Cicero)

A zygote, a clump of human cells, may become a human being some day (most do not) but as yet it is just the ingredients of a human being.

I understand your "grow a baby, birth a baby, raise a baby" argument.  But we're not talking about babies; we're talking now about zygotes, the random clump of human cells that you claim are no different than a cancer tumor.  What I don't understand is your sudden legal protection of the clump of cells that you are so ready to terminate but not experiment on.

I don't understand your reasoning why a women doesn’t' have the legal choice to perform medical experimentation on the clump of cells?  After all, if I have a cancerous tumor, I can submit myself to experimental treatments that could - cure me, do nothing, or kill me.  I just don't understand WHY you believe medical experimentation for women on this random human tissue should be illegal.  After all Box, isn't a tumor and zygote the same?  What if the woman has a family member with some genetic disease, and in the name of finding a cure, she chooses to experiment on this random clump of cells?  Why is that not a choice?  

It seems to me, that in the mind of the person that can justify terminating a zygote based on the argument that it is a woman's right to choose, and a zygote isn't a human being but just a clump of cells, then should also agree that a woman can CHOOSE to do ANYTHING she wants to do with her body including medical experimentation on the random human cells that exist in the woman’s body after the male sperm fertilizes the female egg.

Quoted from CICERO

I understand your "grow a baby, birth a baby, raise a baby" argument.  But we're not talking about babies; we're talking now about zygotes, the random clump of human cells that you claim are no different than a cancer tumor.  What I don't understand is your sudden legal protection of the clump of cells that you are so ready to terminate but not experiment on.

I don't understand your reasoning why a women doesn’t' have the legal choice to perform medical experimentation on the clump of cells?  After all, if I have a cancerous tumor, I can submit myself to experimental treatments that could - cure me, do nothing, or kill me.  I just don't understand WHY you believe medical experimentation for women on this random human tissue should be illegal.  After all Box, isn't a tumor and zygote the same?  What if the woman has a family member with some genetic disease, and in the name of finding a cure, she chooses to experiment on this random clump of cells?  Why is that not a choice?  

It seems to me, that in the mind of the person that can justify terminating a zygote based on the argument that it is a woman's right to choose, and a zygote isn't a human being but just a clump of cells, then should also agree that a woman can CHOOSE to do ANYTHING she wants to do with her body including medical experimentation on the random human cells that exist in the woman’s body after the male sperm fertilizes the female egg.

maybe you could submit yourself for some  ' experimental ' treatment- that would correct cranial- anal inversion ?

Quoted from Sombody

maybe you could submit yourself for some  ' experimental ' treatment- that would correct cranial- anal inversion ?

...Not to worry Sombody, I'm sure that in the near future, speaking in public in defense of the unborn defenseless will be a violation of some law, requiring some type of re-education.  Defending the unborn may actually be considered a form of mental illness in the future.(if it isn't already)

Quoted from CICERO

I understand your "grow a baby, birth a baby, raise a baby" argument.  But we're not talking about babies; we're talking now about zygotes, the random clump of human cells that you claim are no different than a cancer tumor.  What I don't understand is your sudden legal protection of the clump of cells that you are so ready to terminate but not experiment on.

I don't understand your reasoning why a women doesn’t' have the legal choice to perform medical experimentation on the clump of cells?  After all, if I have a cancerous tumor, I can submit myself to experimental treatments that could - cure me, do nothing, or kill me.  I just don't understand WHY you believe medical experimentation for women on this random human tissue should be illegal.  After all Box, isn't a tumor and zygote the same?  What if the woman has a family member with some genetic disease, and in the name of finding a cure, she chooses to experiment on this random clump of cells?  Why is that not a choice?  

It seems to me, that in the mind of the person that can justify terminating a zygote based on the argument that it is a woman's right to choose, and a zygote isn't a human being but just a clump of cells, then should also agree that a woman can CHOOSE to do ANYTHING she wants to do with her body including medical experimentation on the random human cells that exist in the woman’s body after the male sperm fertilizes the female egg.

Yadda Yadda Yadda... Cicero is an argument looking for a place to happen.

Last time.
~Cicero " zygotes, the random clump of human cells that you claim are no different than a cancer tumor"
...Not my words, yours.

~Cicero "What I don't understand is your sudden legal protection of the clump of cells that you are so ready to terminate but not experiment on"
...No protection for a zygote, just the woman.

~Cicero "I don't understand your reasoning why a women doesn’t' have the legal choice to perform medical experimentation on the clump of cells?"
... she probably does.

~Cicero " I just don't understand WHY you believe medical experimentation for women on this random human tissue should be illegal. "
... for the 100th time, I oppose unnecessary experimentation on humans especially when there are alternatives.

~Cicero "  After all Box, isn't a tumor and zygote the same? "
... Again, your words Cicero, not mine. Post what you want, but don't attribute it to me.

~Cicero " What if the woman has a family member with some genetic disease, and in the name of finding a cure, she chooses to experiment on this random clump of cells?  Why is that not a choice? "
...It is.

Cicero~ "It seems to me, that in the mind of the person that can justify terminating a zygote based on the argument that it is a woman's right to choose, and a zygote isn't a human being but just a clump of cells, then should also agree that a woman can CHOOSE to do ANYTHING she wants to do with her body including medical experimentation on the random human cells that exist in the woman’s body after the male sperm fertilizes the female egg."
...Yup.  That's how it seems to you.  

Now, you have posted your views of my views.  Totally distorted of course, but you are entitled to your reality.  I've posted my views... Unless you have something of value to add???
So far, you haven't.