a human embryo

Originally Posted by richard_daily

Resembling a mongol, aka, a fucking barbarian.

nice squirm, but it doesn't wash.

Originally Posted by Ishmael

"Person-hood" is not the issue. Neither is 'nonviable tissue mass.'

If you were to perform a DNA test you would find that that fetus is undeniably human.

As you well know, I'm not an antiabortionist, but I do acknowledge the core of the debate. If you can discard a human at 8 weeks, then why not 2 years? Or for that matter any individual that is incapable of fending for themselves? It's not a religious issue, although many tend to couch it in those terms. It's a moral issue, does the law extend itself to protect those incapable of protecting themselves or not? And if not, why not? What are the parameters that guide us as to what form of human is protected? And why one and not the other?

We are told by the proponents that it's a "woman's prerogative." She is free to do with her body as she will. The first question is just what gives a woman the right to decide life or death without the victim of the execution having an advocate? After all when it's all said and done that is exactly what's occurring, an execution.

And if we're to buy in to the whole "free to do with her body" gambit then why should prostitution be illegal? Or even regulated for that matter? Why aren't women up in arms over that legal restriction?

Indeed, to not recognize the fetus as human is to engage in a form of rationalization that cannot be supported by any science I know of.

Ishmael

no, of course you aren't antiabortion

and prostitution isn't illegal, at least not in most countries.

[HeyItsDani]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

If you can discard a human at 8 weeks, then why not 2 years?

Funny how you can claim to “acknowledge the core of the debate,” yet be too dense to understand the difference between an 8-week old fetus and a 2 year old child.

The first question is just what gives a woman the right to decide life or death without the victim of the execution having an advocate? After all when it's all said and done that is exactly what's occurring, an execution.

Actually, the first question is just what makes you think a woman is nothing more than an incubator, merely a vessel that is of such low status that she should be forced to give up her rights as a full member of the human species and be forced to endure a pregnancy that she does not wish to carry. Where do you get the idea that she should be forced to endure the several months of life-endangering conditions that a pregnancy involves if she does not wish to do so? What makes you think that the growing fetus’ rights should trump her rights, or even be coequal to them? To assert that a woman loses her right to make these fundamental decisions about her own being is inherently misogynistic.

And who are you to decide what moral framework this individual should live by when it comes to these kinds of decisions? Morality is hardly the black and white issue you make it out to be. Your basic problem is that you believe your morals should apply and that you should be allowed to make these decisions for her or determine her destiny, rather than her making those decisions for herself. Of all the arrogance.

And if we're to buy in to the whole "free to do with her body" gambit then why should prostitution be illegal? Or even regulated for that matter? Why aren't women up in arms over that legal restriction?

Many do argue exactly that. And as Kybele pointed out, in most places, prostitution isn’t illegal. But my question to you is, are you really so ignorant that you cannot see the fundamental difference between this and the issues associated with the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy? Really?

[eyer]

A person who champions freedom of choice and then supports death of human life...

...is just that much more waste than a person who champions freedom of self and then supports enslavement of human life.

Abortion mistresses should be disrespected with even more disdain than slave masters...

[richard_daily]

Originally Posted by Kybele

nice squirm, but it doesn't wash.

I'm not squirming at all. morgrel/ mongoloid, are all the same thing. I wasn't even aware that Mongoloid meant anything different TBPH.

[blunt_trauma]

i don't think picking out one race as more barbaric is very nice either. modern western superiority?

Originally Posted by richard_daily

I'm not squirming at all. morgrel/ mongoloid, are all the same thing. I wasn't even aware that Mongoloid meant anything different TBPH.

oh come on! what fucking planet do you live on!

[richard_daily]

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

i don't think picking out one race as more barbaric is very nice either. modern western superiority?

From my understanding, and in my usage, it's referring to the Mongolian hordes... Not modern day Mongolia.

Originally Posted by Kybele

oh come on! what fucking planet do you live on!

A non-british one!

[blunt_trauma]

Originally Posted by richard_daily

From my understanding, and in my usage, it's referring to the Mongolian hordes... Not modern day Mongolia.

how do control freak, overly civilised wasps compare to an ancient, nomadic tribal culture?

that makes no sense at all...

Originally Posted by richard_daily

From my understanding, and in my usage, it's referring to the Mongolian hordes... Not modern day Mongolia.



A non-british one!

mongol has been used as a term for Down syndrome for decades and decades in the usa.

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

how do control freak, overly civilised wasps compare to an ancient, nomadic tribal culture?

that makes no sense at all...

in fairness, the Mongols under Genghis Khan were rather more than a nomadic tribe.

[blunt_trauma]

Originally Posted by Kybele

in fairness, the Mongols under Genghis Khan were rather more than a nomadic tribe.

were they obsessed with helmet hair, perfectly manicured lawns, church and controlling the reproductive organs of strangers?

[Sonny Limatina]

Originally Posted by Kybele

mongol has been used as a term for Down syndrome for decades and decades in the usa.

"Mongoloid," not mongol. But it's also been out of favor for many dozens of years.

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

were they obsessed with helmet hair, perfectly manicured lawns, church and controlling the reproductive organs of strangers?

OK, I have completely missed something. We aren't talking about Dick's pretty awful faux pas that is oppressive to a group of disabled people and/or potentially racist?

[blunt_trauma]

Originally Posted by Sonny Limatina

"Mongoloid," not mongol. But it's also been out of favor for many dozens of years.

Originally Posted by richard_daily

An american state filled with lots of mongoloids...

'mongols' would describe people from mongolia,

'mongoloids' would describe people with downs.

yes? no?

that's how it is here.

[Disgustipated]

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

'mongols' would describe people from mongolia,

'mongoloids' would describe people with downs.

yes? no?

that's how it is here.

Yes, but I would punch a fucker in the neck if he ever used "mongoloid" to describe someone with Down's.

[Sonny Limatina]

Yes.

.

[Karen Kraft]

Looks like Lisa Simpson.

[blunt_trauma]

Originally Posted by Disgustipated

Yes, but I would punch a fucker in the neck if he ever used "mongoloid" to describe someone with Down's.

the 60+ age range seem to use that term a lot, but it was not considered an offencive term when they learnt it.
mongoloids, spastics, cripples, etc. it was the language of the day.

Originally Posted by Sonny Limatina

"Mongoloid," not mongol. But it's also been out of favor for many dozens of years.

Only out of use in text books (though I have one in my office from the late 1970s which uses the term). In lay usage it's still out there, usually as a pejorative like "retard".

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

'mongols' would describe people from mongolia,

'mongoloids' would describe people with downs.

yes? no?

that's how it is here.

no, actually mongoloid is used to describe the specific race. It is still a very colonial and outdated concept, though. The use of mongoloid as a term for people with Down Syndrome (or Trisomy 21 if you really wanna be correct/pedantic/medicalised) came later.

[blunt_trauma]

Originally Posted by Kybele

no, actually mongoloid is used to describe the specific race. It is still a very colonial and outdated concept, though. The use of mongoloid as a term for people with Down Syndrome (or Trisomy 21 if you really wanna be correct/pedantic/medicalised) came later.

would ''full of mongoloids'' be the correct usage?
i would have thought ''full of mongols'', ''of mongoloid ancestry'' would be how it works...

but i've never thought about it all that much.

[Sonny Limatina]

Originally Posted by Kybele

Only out of use in text books (though I have one in my office from the late 1970s which uses the term). In lay usage it's still out there, usually as a pejorative like "retard".

In the following space, I will list the differences between that and what I said:

[IrezumiKiss]

Originally Posted by eyer

A person who champions freedom of choice and then supports death of human life...

...is just that much more waste than a person who champions freedom of self and then supports enslavement of human life.

Abortion mistresses should be disrespected with even more disdain than slave masters...

Says the snit who's proudly proclaimed to have never used a condom in his sexual lifetime...

...and so, never would've had to carry the weight for an unwanted child born from his nut juice or venereal disease.

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

would ''full of mongoloids'' be the correct usage?
i would have thought ''full of mongols'', ''of mongoloid ancestry'' would be how it works...

but i've never thought about it all that much.

Mongols come from Mongolia.
Mongoloid is used in the same way that Caucasian is used to describe a specific 'race', which is a colonial racist concept.

So you might have Mongol ancestry, but you ~are~ Mongoloid. The confusion is because the name of the 'race' is derived from the name of the place.

Originally Posted by Sonny Limatina

In the following space, I will list the differences between that and what I said:

see, this is where you are not able to distinguish between technical/academic usage and lay usage.

In the USA the term 'retarded' was still current in terms of technical/academic use until about a year ago. But if you read current academic journals you still find the term and for it to fall out of lay usage will take even longer.

Try substituting 'negroid' for mongoloid and see how it works.

Originally Posted by IrezumiKiss

Says the snit who's proudly proclaimed to have never used a condom in his sexual lifetime...

...and so, never would've had to carry the weight for an unwanted child born from his nut juice or venereal disease.

what? who are you talking to?

[blunt_trauma]

Originally Posted by Kybele

what? who are you talking to?

eeyore

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

eeyore

ahhh the joy of nuke ignore.