Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "" video.

@omnisomnia Either the fetus is life or it isn't. One of the arguments, of those supporting abortion, was that a fetus, in its early stages, was NOT life. Since the fetus, in its early stages isn't alive, then you're not ending a life when you abort it, which validates their right to end its existence. What this sentence is saying is that, given the definition of life, if bacteria on Mars is life, meaning that it fills all the criteria that defines life, then a fetus is life also, in that it ALSO defines the criteria of what defines life. It's not saying that it's human....just that it is alive. There has been, for years, the argument was that, at conception, the new entity isn't life or alive. The question was this. When does life begin....at conception or later. Abortionists were saying that life didn't start at conception. However, that was at odds with the official definition of life. The argument has now shifted to saying that the entity, at conception, isn't human. That's an admission that it IS life. Then, the statement that he made, is NOT an erroneous conflation. They ARE both life. Not the same species....but life. The idea that life, starts out as non-human, basically a different species, and BECOMES human is erroneous. It's just human in a different stage of life. I find it puzzling on how this is difficult to understand. If there is life at conception and if they find living bacteria on Mars, meaning life, then they're both life. It's a "DUH" statement.
4
@omnisomnia He's wondering why there is some arbitrary point, in the development of this new life in the womb, that would suddenly give that life new value. Why is valuable NEXT week but not THIS week? If it's alive as an new and growing human, what changes? Unless you don't believe it has life, at all, until that arbitrary moment and THEN that life begins and that has been an argument for years. "It's just a clump of cells" I've heard this said countless times. He's calling into question the rationale between distinguishing why one is called a life and another one isn't by those that make that argument. If it is life, what species of life is it. Is that new entity, in the womb, human life or NOT?
3
@omnisomnia It's not an equivocation. It's the hypocrisy that he's referring to. The left tries to tell us that the entity, in the womb isn't life. Then they try to tell us that if it is life, it's NOT human. Then they call it a parasite, which implies life. It's not exactly the same as that line but it does show the mental gymnastics in trying to rationalise the morality and the logic used used to justify abortions. Why do I say that? Because any analysis of the DNA of a month old fetus will bring only one result. That this is a human being. It reflects every requirement in defining life. Life definition: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. A fetus is organic matter, is a growing entity, has the capacity to reproduce, to engage in functional activity and is undergoing continual change and those functions can be arrested through the finality of death. The DNA analysis that this fetus, this organic matter is human life. So....So a bacteria on Mars is life, but a heartbeat on Earth isn't? I see no equivocation here but I do hear one's cognitive dissonance reacting desperately to tear apart the message in that line.
2
@ebogar42 I didn't quite catch that racist message. Why don't you elaborate and show us specifically what's so racist about his message? That would be really helpful for those of us that don't "get it".
2
@Crazy Ass Cracker "I won't even listen to it" The truth too difficult for you? Or does it just hurt too much. I find rap exceedingly annoying but the lyrics here are dead on truth. I listened, not because I find the music uplifting, but because he's telling the truth. His appearance is at the very essence of bigotry. Judging a person by their appearance and you've, unwittingly, allowed yourself to be the poster boy of bigotry. You're everything that he's talking about and you don't have the self awareness to get it.
2
@TheTarco He "could" title a song that? Is that your projection? It seems as if you're writing a narrative with the assumption that it's true. He hasn't titled a song "I hate black people" and no one HAS tried to defend that title. That's all in your head, your own projection of how others think.
1
@TheTarco "Fake woke" is a fascist dog whistle? If a person is a hypocrite, you being "fake woke". Antifa screaming "racism" by calling a man like, Daryl Davis, the "n" word or a telling a black American how he should think, believe or vote and then calling him names if he doesn't toe their cultural line. Hyperbole is an exaggeration not to be taken seriously. Hyperbolic hypothetical is positing an unproven idea that is not to be taken seriously. It's as close to a contradiction as you could get. Let's talk facts instead of your idea that isn't proven and is so nonsensical that the very definition of the term says to ignore it.
1
Aren't you the nasty one. I guess name calling and anger is a lot easier than discussing what he's trying to say. Nothing says fighting "cultural division" like a good "fucking idiot" comment.
1
Did he actually say that? I didn't catch it. Or is this just how YOU hear his message. What I have noticed over the last few years. The words "racist" and "racism" is a catch all word used to win arguments and place the verbal opponent on the defensive. A way to go off topic and attack the one that you disagree with. It's become generic way to win all debates and has become meaningless.
1
@notfromhere8889 It's become the catch phrase. There are over 40 million black Americans and close to 200 million white Americans. People get into disputes over all kinds of things. Now, every time a white person gets into a dispute, no matter how trivial, it gets turned into a racist issue, even if it's an argument over a barking dog. I don't care if the owner of the dog is a black person or a white person but for some, my complaint would be driven by racism, even if all I want is for the dog to shutup so I can get to sleep. What I'm talking about is purity tests to prove that people are racist and the tests are so stringent that NO one could pass it. You'll always be deemed a racist and that doesn't solve the issues surrounding true animosity based solely on race. In fact, it adds to the problems by encouraging resentment. That's what I'm talking about. However, for those using "racism" as a weapon to get what they want, they want to perpetuate the notion that every interracial dispute is based on racism. It serves their purpose and it might just stop me from complaining about their barking dog.
1
@notfromhere8889 There are always things in life that need improvement. Never, in the history of man, I'd say the history of the universe, have things been perfect. That's a journey that we all have to take, that search for ultimate truth and the correct path. We could work harder, be a little more understanding, be on time, stop day dreaming....there's always room for improvement in all aspects of life. The problem is that there is a tendency to label too much as racist, even before a conversation is started. It indicates that the person isn't interested in the truth but only wants easy answers to difficult questions. When we live in a time when math is racist, milk and camping, bike riding and street signs, chess and statues of Jesus. The Master's Golf tournament, Uncle Ben and your front lawn. This is how crazy things have become and if you think I'm making it up, I can show you the articles from supposedly accredited sources.
1