# Trumps miracle cure developed from baby tissue



## notimp (Oct 10, 2020)

Its a gift from god!

Ah, never felt so good sh*tposting in my life... 



> Trump's coronavirus treatment was based on fetal tissue research
> 
> US President Donald Trump has been treated with an anti-COVID-19 drug developed with cells derived from fetal tissue. He called it a God-given miracle cure, but what will his anti-abortion supporters think?





> REGN-COV2 is not manufactured in human cells, but in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. The effectiveness of the antibodies it contains, however, was tested on cells derived from kidney tissue taken from an abortion carried out in the Netherlands in the 1970s.


https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-coronavirus-drug-fetal-tissue/a-55223016

edit: But wait, its not fetal tissue, it just was fetal tissue. Then we grew the fetal tissue cells for 50 years in a lab, and now it has magically become non fetal tissue:


> Regeneron has not denied using 293T, yet argues that the cells should not be considered "human" tissue as they were grown in a lab. "It's how you want to parse it," says Regeneron spokeswoman Alexandra Bowie. "But the 293T cell lines available today are not considered fetal tissue, and we did not otherwise use fetal tissue."



Wow, thats so... logical. 

edit: Fun fact:


> The *liver is the only* visceral *organ* that possesses the capacity to *regenerate*. The*liver can regenerate* after either surgical removal or after chemical injury. It is known that as little as 51% of the original *liver* mass *can regenerate* back to its full size.


src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_regeneration

Wow, that babies liver has grown for 50 years in a lab. 

edit: Hey, that babies liver has cousins!
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/293T

Calling the Guinness book of world records.


----------



## mikefor20 (Oct 10, 2020)

He probably eats babies all the time. Damned Cheeto Demon.  Let the anti-abortionists justify saving their own lives off technology that was developed initially using human fetuses lol.  If its a cluster of cells in a lab, it's just as alive as a zygote anyway. Hypocrites. They should be picketing to implant that tissue. lol. The fake tissue is still more evolved than T-Rump. And most of the religious sect for that matter..

They complain that in v\itro procedures make multipule discarded fetuses.  Those are lab created. Hypocrites.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 10, 2020)

FWIW, it's a little more complicated than that. From what I could gather reading USA Today's article on this, the company Regeneron did utilize cells that are derived from fetal liver cells from 1972 in its early research on the treatment method. Pretty much every major pharmaceutical company would have to say the same about the initial R&D on most of their cutting edge stuff. But the actual 'antibiotic cocktail' treatment they developed for Covid-19 uses cells from a human donor who survived the virus, and an immunized mouse. They didn't harvest stem-cell material from fetuses to produce the antibody treatment that was given to the President.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/5901542002



> *Our rating: False *
> We rate this claim FALSE because it is not supported by our research. The experimental antibody therapy Trump received was not directly made from fetal or embryonic stem cells, rather antibodies obtained from SARS-CoV-2 human survivors and immunized mice engineered with a human immune system. Regeneron's official statement released in April, cited on Twitter as a basis for the claim, is a general position on stem cell research and is unrelated to how the antibody therapy is actually made. However, an embryonic-derived cell line, albeit not a stem cell, does appear to have been involved at least in the early stages of Regeneron's testing process, according to supplementary material published in June. The HEK293T cells used are an immortalized cell line derived from embryonic kidney cells but are not stem cells themselves.




I'm not an advocate for banning abortion, btw. I think it's none of the government's business, especially pre-viability. 

I also think the odds of Roe v. Wade ever being reversed are about on-par with the odds of Mozambique becoming the world's dominant superpower in this decade.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 10, 2020)

Y'all didn't care about the lives of babies until Trump took a COVID antidote. Awkward.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Y'all didn't care about the lives of babies until Trump took a COVID antidote. Awkward.




That's just Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" in practice. #4, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” It's dishonest, but effective against those who are ignorant of the tactic.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Oct 10, 2020)

serious question, does anybody takes trump seriously?


----------



## Chains (Oct 10, 2020)

What happened to the hydroxychloroquines? Remember when Trump was pushing the hydroxy non-stop?
Not a peep now, and its all about this miracle cure all Regeneron that no one can get, unless you're the president of course.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 10, 2020)

Chains said:


> What happened to the hydroxychloroquines? Remember when Trump was pushing the hydroxy non-stop?
> Not a peep now, and its all about this miracle cure all Regeneron that no one can get, unless you're the president of course.


He's gonna give it to everyone for free.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 10, 2020)

I ain't gonna lie, this seems orchestrated. Trump was sick for like a week and then good the next.S Same with Boris Johnson.

Anyway, I'm glad that "saga" is over so people are less likely to wish death upon Trump (smh what sickos!).


----------



## Chains (Oct 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> He's gonna give it to everyone for free.


Why stop there, make healthcare free too.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 10, 2020)

Chains said:


> Why stop there, make healthcare free too.


I disagree. I'd say that even making Regeneron free is too far. Inevitably, it will go out of stock within the first hour.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 10, 2020)

Chains said:


> Why stop there, make healthcare free too.


Well, that would be "free," not free.

People in every country should have access to healthcare as that is essential.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 10, 2020)

Chains said:


> What happened to the hydroxychloroquines? Remember when Trump was pushing the hydroxy non-stop?
> Not a peep now, and its all about this miracle cure all Regeneron that no one can get, unless you're the president of course.



Wasn't the whole idea with the hydroxychloroquine to prevent getting the virus by making a person's immune response more resistant to it, and to reduce the virus' impact on the body if you did get it? i.e. it wasn't for actually treating people who already had it. We know the President was taking hydroxychloroquine months ago, and I don't remember ever hearing him say he stopped. He sure blew through Covid19 without issue for a 74 year old man though. Maybe it worked as intended.


----------



## notimp (Oct 11, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> FWIW, it's a little more complicated than that. From what I could gather reading USA Today's article on this, the company Regeneron did utilize cells that are derived from fetal liver cells from 1972 in its early research on the treatment method. Pretty much every major pharmaceutical company would have to say the same about the initial R&D on most of their cutting edge stuff. But the actual 'antibiotic cocktail' treatment they developed for Covid-19 uses cells from a human donor who survived the virus, and an immunized mouse. They didn't harvest stem-cell material from fetuses to produce the antibody treatment that was given to the President.
> 
> https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/5901542002
> 
> ...


The source I linked, as well as the quotes I posted say so. 

They re-created the spike Covid uses to infect other cells on a baby liver cell, then tested if their antibodies would dock onto it. Because it saved a bunch of time, and was less costly, and less dangerous than working with actual Covid in a laboratory scenario.

So baby liver was used in testing, not in the manufacturing of the antibodies.

Testing is also development.

Which makes your 'fake!' post entirely insincere.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 11, 2020)

notimp said:


> The source I linked, as well as the quotes I posted say so.
> 
> They re-created the spike Covid uses to infect other cells on a baby liver cell, then tested if their antibodies would dock onto it. Because it saved a bunch of time, and was less costly, and less dangerous that working with actual Covid in a laboratory scenario.
> 
> ...




Talk to the fact checkers at USAToday. They say you're wrong. Gizmodo says so too, though they reach a conclusion that the criticism of Trump is "fair" not because "baby liver" was used to produce the treatment he got (they disagree with that, just like USAToday), but because the Trump administration put some restrictions on this kind of research in 2019. Nevermind that the research Regeneron relies on took place over 40 years ago, and most importantly Gizmodo does not ask the question of whether the President was specifically informed of the detailed history of the medicine before he received it. We have probably all taken medicine at some point that has its developmental roots in some fetal tissue research, without being aware of it. As the Gizmodo article explains, even Pepsi and Kraft were once exposed to have been using those lab-grown cell lines (what you're calling baby liver) in their product research. That doesn't mean we're eating aborted babies if we have a Pepsi or a slice of cheese.

https://gizmodo.com/fact-check-heres-the-deal-with-trumps-antibody-cocktai-1845317087


----------



## weatMod (Oct 11, 2020)

it don't matter because he never had the virus and he never took the  regeneron snake oil


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 11, 2020)

weatMod said:


> it don't matter because he never had the virus and he never took the  regeneron snake oil


You're still on that, huh?


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Y'all didn't care about the lives of babies until Trump took a COVID antidote. Awkward.



Ya'll care about the lives of babies up until birth. Then you don't give a shit about them. Awkward.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 11, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Ya'll care about the lives of babies up until birth. Then you don't give a shit about them. Awkward.


So you admit that unborn babies are still babies...


----------



## Chains (Oct 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> making Regeneron free is too far.


It wont be free child, your mommies tax $ will cover it. Regeneron CEO is a member at Trump's golf club, he owned their stock and they got $450 million months ago for R&D. What's he pitching next? Viagra? If you weren't single & unemployed then perhaps it would've went out of stock within the first hour.


----------



## depaul (Oct 11, 2020)

The average person that I am will ask: Where was this cure hiding this whole time? Why they never talked about it to the public? Why not research some method to mass produce this drug if it's that effective?


----------



## mrjoshuaco (Oct 11, 2020)

depaul said:


> Where was this cure hiding this whole time?


Because it's not a cure, it's a component of the overall treatment. I was a patient in the COVID ICU for 9 days last month and I received a very similar treatment. This included donated plasma with antibodies (similar purpose as Regeneron), Remdesivir (an antiviral), blood thinners and a metric fuckton of antibiotics and steroids (dexamethasone). I ended up making a nearly full recovery and was discharged with oxygen which I still use at night (SpO2 drops below 90 at night still), but otherwise no side effects beyond "brain fog" and a lot of fatigue still. Hopefully that sheds some light on this, and reinforces that as they've learned more about COVID, the treatment for it has started to become more consistent as efficacy has been measured.

Edit: For reference, I'm a male in my mid-40's, not at risk and in good health and fitness. I rarely ever get sick. I was just unlucky.

Edit 2: If you've tested positive and have cleared quarantine - *please donate plasma if you're able*. It's in short supply, and it makes a big difference for those who could use it like I did. I've already got my appointment set to do so now that I'm symptom-free.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 11, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> That's just Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" in practice. #4, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” It's dishonest, but effective against those who are ignorant of the tactic.


Pointing out hypocrisy is dishonest? Or do I miss the meaning?



depaul said:


> The average person that I am will ask: Where was this cure hiding this whole time? Why they never talked about it to the public? Why not research some method to mass produce this drug if it's that effective?


We know how viruses work. Things like this have proven helpful for other viruses, but are not something readily available to just anyone. Basically they did all the things that should help given what we know, and these are generally things the average joe wouldn't be able to do easily (especially all of them) without cash and luck.  It's probably better to think of them as general techniques that have proven useful for other viruses, rather than some magic pill no one else knows about. It might not have worked. But certainly wasn't going to hurt


----------



## depaul (Oct 11, 2020)

mrjoshuaco said:


> Because it's not a cure, it's a component of the overall treatment. I was a patient in the COVID ICU for 9 days last month and I received a very similar treatment. This included donated plasma with antibodies (similar purpose as Regeneron), Remdesivir (an antiviral), blood thinners and a metric fuckton of antibiotics and steroids (dexamethasone). I ended up making a nearly full recovery and was discharged with oxygen which I still use at night (SpO2 drops below 90 at night still), but otherwise no side effects beyond "brain fog" and a lot of fatigue still. Hopefully that sheds some light on this, and reinforces that as they've learned more about COVID, the treatment for it has started to become more consistent as efficacy has been measured.
> 
> Edit: For reference, I'm a male in my mid-40's, not at risk and in good health and fitness. I rarely ever get sick. I was just unlucky.


Thanks for your explanation and wish you full recovery my friend. Get well soon.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 11, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> Pointing out hypocrisy is dishonest? Or do I miss the meaning?




Alinsky's rule is "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." 

But Alinsky doesn't have a rule called "We follow our own rules." Unless those "Rules" are the Rules for Radicals themselves. And if so, that's not good.

Rules for Radicals is only about destruction. That's all they're good for. It's all amoral expediency and opportunism. There's nothing constructive in Alinsky's guide to causing collapse.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 11, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> FWIW, it's a little more complicated than that. From what I could gather reading USA Today's article on this, the company Regeneron did utilize cells that are derived from fetal liver cells from 1972 in its early research on the treatment method. Pretty much every major pharmaceutical company would have to say the same about the initial R&D on most of their cutting edge stuff. But the actual 'antibiotic cocktail' treatment they developed for Covid-19 uses cells from a human donor who survived the virus, and an immunized mouse. They didn't harvest stem-cell material from fetuses to produce the antibody treatment that was given to the President.
> 
> https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/5901542002
> 
> ...


Considering last I checked Roe v Wade was almost immediately superceded by Doe V Bolton which was done later the same day and specified details, but gets no coverage because everyone was circlejerking or ragejerking over Roe V Wade anyhow.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 11, 2020)

We'll all get a vaccine next year at some point, but there will be better treatments for those with more money and power. Just like everything else.



Hanafuda said:


> Alinsky's rule is "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
> 
> But Alinsky doesn't have a rule called "We follow our own rules." Unless those "Rules" are the Rules for Radicals themselves. And if so, that's not good.
> 
> Rules for Radicals is only about destruction. That's all they're good for. It's all amoral expediency and opportunism. There's nothing constructive in Alinsky's guide to causing collapse.


Never heard of Alinsky before. I'll have to add that to my reading list. And so the other half of the thought I'm missing is: To distract from your own hypocrisy, point out the other persons hypocrisy? Or is it more troll-like, to use their hypocrisy as a tool to distract from something meaningful? I can understand that. But that does assume it is a distraction and isn't meaningful in-of-itself to point out hypocrisy.

But I agree, I've found pointing out hypocrisy rarely lands. Folks are incredibly good at compartmentalizing, and folks can easily hold opposing thoughts as both true. Pointing out how they are opposing generally leads to some usage of a logical fallacy so the discrepancy doesn't have to be acknowledged. I find if someone cannot go into details on why they believe what they believe, then it hardly matters if someone points out discrepancies. They just assume they're right, but how they're right is in the details they don't know...but they assume they're there. And that's that. And no amount of evidence or logic will convince them they're wrong because they refuse to figure out how they're right.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 12, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So you admit that unborn babies are still babies...



It is my opinion that they are babies from the time of conception. It is also my opinion that if I was a woman and raped, I more than likely wouldn't want to keep the baby. But I wouldn't wait either, it would be taken care of same day. My final opinion on the matter is that I don't agree that abortions should be ok if people "made a mistake". Tough, keep your pants on if you don't want the consequences. I don't have the answers on how to solve it, but I don't feel outright banning them for every single instance is the best way to go.


----------



## mrjoshuaco (Oct 12, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> It is my opinion that they are babies from the time of conception.



These statements...



D34DL1N3R said:


> I more than likely wouldn't want to keep the baby. But I wouldn't wait either, it would be taken care of same day.



...are incongruous. You're either killing a child (as you see it) or you're not - the circumstances, however tragic, are irrelevant. Basically, the only stance you're taking here is that's okay to kill a child if you're raped, but not if you're a mistaken dirty whore (not my stance, just a bit of hyperbole for effect).


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 12, 2020)

I'm glad to see the President didn't get too ill, but I predicted as much because the odds are that if you get COVID19 you probably won't even get sick let alone die. This entire fetus crap is also more Liberal nonsense and I'll translate "Liberal nonsense" for you. Translation = Lies. 

Oh, and killing the unborn is murder.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 12, 2020)

mrjoshuaco said:


> These statements...
> 
> 
> 
> ...are incongruous. You're either killing a child (as you see it) or you're not - the circumstances, however tragic, are irrelevant. Basically, the only stance you're taking here is that's okay to kill a child if you're raped, but not if you're a mistaken dirty whore (not my stance, just a bit of hyperbole for effect).



No, they are incongruous with your own opinions on the matter. Thanks. Bye.


----------



## mrjoshuaco (Oct 12, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> No, they are incongruous with your own opinions on the matter. Thanks. Bye.



I used your own words, champ, but quality retort. Carry on.


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 12, 2020)

I find this pretty disgusting. But this same cell line has also been used for testing purposes for Pepsi, the cola drink, so if you ever drank it, don't be a hypocrite and complain about Trump here.


----------



## mrjoshuaco (Oct 12, 2020)

bodefuceta said:


> don't be a hypocrite and complain about Trump here.


You do realize that most folks on the opposite side of the aisle wouldn't object to its use, right? You can call it out for the hypocrisy that it is, while still holding the position that it's a perfectly acceptable activity.


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 12, 2020)

mrjoshuaco said:


> You do realize that most folks on the opposite side of the aisle wouldn't object to its use, right? You can call it out for the hypocrisy that it is, while still holding the position that it's a perfectly acceptable activity.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "other side of the aisle", but either way you are implying there is a substantial(?) subset of people to whom drinking Pepsi would be hypocrisy, though you are not one of them, and must call them out on it. I can't tell if this really is how you see the world around you, or just silly political baiting.


----------



## mrjoshuaco (Oct 12, 2020)

bodefuceta said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "other side of the aisle"


Anyone criticizing Trump for use of a medication produced as a result of fetal stem cells (which, in fairness, it's NOT, but I'm not arguing that point) in light of his stance on abortion (and more importantly, the Republican Party's platform stance) isn't a hypocrite unless they've taken that stance themselves, which many liberals (the other side of the aisle) do not.

But it's really semantics at this point since Regeneron is actually NOT developed from aborted fetal tissue. Here's the source if anyone's curious.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...therapy-not-made-fetal-stem-cells/5901542002/


----------



## aclearersky (Oct 12, 2020)

Chains said:


> Why stop there, make healthcare free too.


Offering someone else's service for free is known as slavery. This is what people don't understand. Healthcare is a service not a good. Cant just force people to provide you with a service. Nationalized healthcare will be just as bad as the public schools or the roads have become. Even though private isnt always the best, its always better than government controlled.


----------



## mrjoshuaco (Oct 12, 2020)

aclearersky said:


> Even though private isnt always the best, its always better than government controlled.


Fantastic. So when do we start dismantling Medicare, Medicaid and the VA? While we're at it, we need privatize both Social Security as well as management and maintenance of our nuclear arsenals. Clearly if they can't handle healthcare, they can't handle those either, right?


----------



## bodefuceta (Oct 12, 2020)

mrjoshuaco said:


> Anyone criticizing Trump for use of a medication produced as a result of fetal stem cells (which, in fairness, it's NOT, but I'm not arguing that point) in light of his stance on abortion (and more importantly, the Republican Party's platform stance) isn't a hypocrite unless they've taken that stance themselves, which many liberals (the other side of the aisle) do not.
> 
> But it's really semantics at this point since Regeneron is actually NOT developed from aborted fetal tissue. Here's the source if anyone's curious.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...therapy-not-made-fetal-stem-cells/5901542002/


Abortions simply are not performed in order to harvest cells, so this has nothing to do with one's stance on allowing abortions, even if the tissue in question was actually present in the product. This argument is like saying one should destroy all wood seaships in museums if he thinks crossing the sea on them isn't safe.
Edit: clarifying.


----------



## aclearersky (Oct 12, 2020)

mrjoshuaco said:


> Fantastic. So when do we start dismantling Medicare, Medicaid and the VA? While we're at it, we need privatize both Social Security as well as management and maintenance of our nuclear arsenals. Clearly if they can't handle healthcare, they can't handle those either, right?



Well based on the fact they've mismanaged social security and is now estimated to run out by 2035. Where if I would have invested my own money instead of paid it into them I would have over a million for sure by the time I retire. The VA is in shambles. Thank god trump came in and allowed veterans to have an option to go where they would like to be treated. Medicare and Medicaid are both ran like shit and are bloated. The national defense should be one of the only things the government is responsible for. But even that is out of control. A nearly 700 billion military budget is insane. There is no reason when were not at war it should be even half of that. But the government has an "unlimited" budget and doesn't care at all about balancing any books. If you or I were a million dollars in debt and instead of paying any of it off continued to spend they'd take all of our stuff. Luckily for the government hasn't had china take our stuff yet. When we have more nuclear missiles than all other countries combined with the exception of russia there is an issue.


----------



## mrjoshuaco (Oct 12, 2020)

aclearersky said:


> Well based on the fact they've mismanaged social security and will now estimated run out by 2035.


This keeps getting bandied about, except it doesn't mean what you think it means. While it's certainly been mismanaged (by whom, and why, is an entirely new argument), it's primarily as a result of a lack of funding to cover the gap. The reality is that the population shift results in a gap of an estimated 23%. There's plenty of shit to bitch about when it comes to Social Security, but oddly enough, the "running out (which it isn't) in 2035" is one of the least.



aclearersky said:


> The VA is in shambles. Thank god trump came in and allowed veterans to have an option to go where they would like to be treated.


You do realize that Veteran's Choice was passed by Obama in 2014 right? Trump, to his credit, did however, expand eligibility. It's now 20 days and 30 mins, as opposed to 30 days and 40 miles. I say this as a vet that uses the VA. Anyway, the administration is claiming a ton of wins here they didn't earn.



aclearersky said:


> and doesn't care at all about balancing any books. If you or I were a million dollars in debt and instead of paying any of it off continued to spend they'd take all of our stuff.


While our spending is certainly out of control, and the deficit should be improved, the LAST thing we want to be doing is paying off large amounts of our debt. To say otherwise belies a VERY poor understanding of the reasons behind the strength of the dollar and global markets. China isn't going to "take all of our stuff" because much of their entire economy is leveraged on their (and everyone else's) investment in our debt.

Otherwise, we agree on healthcare spending. The systems are bloated and mismanaged, much of it as a result of constant regime change, budget adjustments and eligibility management. A national system would actually serve to reduce this, provided a proper watchdog were established. Course, it's also subject to regime changes - just look at the UK's system being bled dry, not by the citizens use, but by the government itself fucking with funding. We also agree on out of control defense spending. Anyway, spent more time in this thread than was necessary, especially for a one-off comment about COVID. I certainly don't come to this forum to discuss politics, heh. Agree or don't. Cheers!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



bodefuceta said:


> Abortions simply are not performed in order to harvest cells, so this has nothing to do with one's stance on allowing abortions, even if the tissue in question was actually present in the product. This argument is like saying one should destroy all wood seaships in museums if he thinks crossing the sea on them isn't safe.
> Edit: clarifying.


I can only assume we're talking past each other here, chief. There's no other way to explain the miscommunication, cause you're not arguing against the point I made.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2020)

I, too, want toll booths on every road.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 12, 2020)

mrjoshuaco said:


> I used your own words, champ, but quality retort. Carry on.



Of course it's my words because they are my opinions. Your problem with them is that they don't fall in line with yours, champ. Your retort sucks, zero quality at all. Carry on.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 12, 2020)

aclearersky said:


> Offering someone else's service for free is known as slavery. This is what people don't understand. Healthcare is a service not a good. Cant just force people to provide you with a service. Nationalized healthcare will be just as bad as the public schools or the roads have become. Even though private isnt always the best, its always better than government controlled.


you should google the privatization of the fire department and the history of that. reflects healthcare a bit, though we're just in the middle of the change.


----------



## mrjoshuaco (Oct 12, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Of course it's my words because they are my opinions. Your problem with them is that they don't fall in line with yours, champ. Your retort sucks, zero quality at all. Carry on.


Ok, one more time then, with crayons. You stated that you believe life begins at conception. You also stated that you would allow abortions in cases of rape. *Thus, you believe that killing babies is okay in certain instances.* I find this stance difficult to reconcile (thus incongruous). Nothing more, nothing less. My personal position on the topic has ZERO relevance on this discussion, as I'm literally using your position and yours alone. I'm not staying you can't have this position, you certainly can. I just don't see where the line is easily drawn here. I get folks who believe in a woman's choice, and who don't consider it more than a clump of cells up to a certain point. I also understand those who believe life begins at conception. What I don't get is those who consider it life, but are willing to kill it based on the manner in which it was conceived, however tragic. The exception I do understand for pro-life folks is when it comes to danger to the mother. At least then, you're choosing a life or another - that I can reconcile. Yours, not so much.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 12, 2020)

Meh... I've waited a few days to check if anyone would have any doubts on this, but nobody did.
And to be honest, I'm glad. Sure, I won't deny I'm interested to see how this would play out between Trump and Pence (the latter is the die hard anti abortionist)... But this stuff is just an argument for the sake of an argument.

"but what if you can only live at the expense of unborn foetusses?" 

Yeah, sure. Easy points for the abortionists. But at best it annoys the others.

Meanwhile, in the real world, this ain't no 'miracle cure '. It's experimental for a reason. And as deadly as covid is, the chances of survival still outrank death, even in Trump's age group. Even without regeneron.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 14, 2020)

mrjoshuaco said:


> Ok, one more time then, with crayons. You stated that you believe life begins at conception. You also stated that you would allow abortions in cases of rape. *Thus, you believe that killing babies is okay in certain instances.* I find this stance difficult to reconcile (thus incongruous). Nothing more, nothing less. My personal position on the topic has ZERO relevance on this discussion, as I'm literally using your position and yours alone. I'm not staying you can't have this position, you certainly can. I just don't see where the line is easily drawn here. I get folks who believe in a woman's choice, and who don't consider it more than a clump of cells up to a certain point. I also understand those who believe life begins at conception. What I don't get is those who consider it life, but are willing to kill it based on the manner in which it was conceived, however tragic. The exception I do understand for pro-life folks is when it comes to danger to the mother. At least then, you're choosing a life or another - that I can reconcile. Yours, not so much.



One more time with crayons? Yeah, but only because that's the equivalent writing tool for your age group. You just flat out PROVED that "My personal position on the topic has ZERO relevance on this discussion" is a bunch of compete bullshit. Talk about pure denial. You also have some reading and/or reading comprehensions issues to work out with yourself. Done with your nonsense. Now off to bed little one. No more crayons and no supper for you. Run along now. Tut tut.


----------



## mrjoshuaco (Oct 15, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> One more time with crayons? Yeah, but only because that's the equivalent writing tool for your age group. You just flat out PROVED that "My personal position on the topic has ZERO relevance on this discussion" is a bunch of compete bullshit. Talk about pure denial. You also have some reading and/or reading comprehensions issues to work out with yourself. Done with your nonsense. Now off to bed little one. No more crayons and no supper for you. Run along now. Tut tut.


----------

