# "My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points



## SweetSue92

I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all. 

The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice. 

But again. Not your body. 

Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.

What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


----------



## sparky

SweetSue92 said:


> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?








~S~


----------



## SweetSue92

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?


----------



## Moonglow

Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..


----------



## SweetSue92

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


I would like everyone to notice Sparky here had nothing to contribute relation to Abortion Talking Points. All he could do was whine about how conservatives don't love Statist Entitlements ENOUGH like comedian George Carlin does. 

Well played Sparky you really made your point


----------



## theHawk

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.


----------



## SweetSue92

Moonglow said:


> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..



I don't want one single thing to do with your body. Really.

Just don't kill someone else's. Or is that too much to ask.


----------



## theHawk

Moonglow said:


> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..



Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.


----------



## SweetSue92

theHawk said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.
Click to expand...


And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations. 

The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.


----------



## theHawk

SweetSue92 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations.
> 
> The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.
Click to expand...


Most women only need assistance because the father runs out on them, or because they have the attitude that they don’t need a man.  

Again, all the lies of feminism cause most of this shit.


----------



## Hellbilly

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## August West

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.


----------



## Moonglow

theHawk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
Click to expand...

It is since it is the woman body which is in control of the fetus, not the other way around..


----------



## theHawk

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Does making rape illegal make it go away entirely?

Should we just legalize rape then?


----------



## theHawk

Moonglow said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is since it is the woman body which is in control of the fetus, not the other way around..
Click to expand...


I never claimed the fetus was in control of the mother.


----------



## SweetSue92

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?

Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.

Dumb argument.


----------



## SweetSue92

August West said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
Click to expand...


Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.


----------



## anynameyouwish

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?




seems to me that conservatives who post "trespassers will be shot" on their property don't really believe that "all life is precious".......

a woman can't have an abortion but you can murder some poor guy who accidentally steps on your property....


----------



## Flash

There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.

"My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.


----------



## SweetSue92

Moonglow said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is since it is the woman body which is in control of the fetus, not the other way around..
Click to expand...


That's biologically unsound and scientifically unsound. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I'm not sure you even know. 

For instance did you know that the hormone that detects pregnancy in home pg tests, HcG is formed in the placenta? That's not "the woman controlling the fetus". It's definitely a mutual process. Additionally, surfactant in the baby's lungs triggers labor--not the mother's body. So you're just wrong.


----------



## Hellbilly

SweetSue92 said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
Click to expand...


If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Moonglow

SweetSue92 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is since it is the woman body which is in control of the fetus, not the other way around..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's biologically unsound and scientifically unsound. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I'm not sure you even know.
> 
> For instance did you know that the hormone that detects pregnancy in home pg tests, HcG is formed in the placenta? That's not "the woman controlling the fetus". It's definitely a mutual process. Additionally, surfactant in the baby's lungs triggers labor--not the mother's body. So you're just wrong.
Click to expand...

The fetus must thrive and to thrive it needs a source for energy and development, the mother's body provides the necessities to develop without it it would die.Simple as that.


----------



## JoeB131

SweetSue92 said:


> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



Fetuses are the same thing as people. That's pretty stupid. 

God wants you to have your baby.  In fact, any argument by anti-choice nuts that involves the word God is pretty stupid. 

here's the reality. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, SHE WILL FIND A WAY TO NOT BE PREGNANT. 

You stupid, misogynistic twat.


----------



## Penelope

SweetSue92 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.
Click to expand...


Then why not punish the women and not the doctor??  After all the women decided to get an abortion.  Why not put the female who attempts to abort her fetus  or aborts her fetus 99 years.  Doctors do not go to pregnant females.


----------



## JoeB131

SweetSue92 said:


> And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations.
> 
> The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.



if charities were getting the job done, we wouldn't need government agencies.  

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Let's get rid of all the "White People Welfare"- social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, FHA and VA loans. Instead, let's let all these white people rely on "Charity" when they hit a rough patch.


----------



## SweetSue92

Moonglow said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is since it is the woman body which is in control of the fetus, not the other way around..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's biologically unsound and scientifically unsound. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I'm not sure you even know.
> 
> For instance did you know that the hormone that detects pregnancy in home pg tests, HcG is formed in the placenta? That's not "the woman controlling the fetus". It's definitely a mutual process. Additionally, surfactant in the baby's lungs triggers labor--not the mother's body. So you're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fetus must thrive and to thrive it needs a source for energy and development, the mother's body provides the necessities to develop without it it would die.Simple as that.
Click to expand...


Of course but the fetus contributes to this as well. It's not like a tumor or a parasite, a comparison the sick Left often makes. It IS a unique few months in the development of ALL humans in that the development must take place inside another human. But the science is now settled, as you all love to say. It is a unique human from the beginning and almost from the beginning has a heart, limbs, etc. And as I said, even contributes to its own development.


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why not punish the women and not the doctor??  After all the women decided to get an abortion.  Why not put the female who attempts to abort her fetus  or aborts her fetus 99 years.  Doctors do not go to pregnant females.
Click to expand...


I would presume because the dr. wields the instruments of murder. If and when the woman does, then I would suppose it's her that would suffer the punishment.


----------



## Moonglow

SweetSue92 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is since it is the woman body which is in control of the fetus, not the other way around..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's biologically unsound and scientifically unsound. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I'm not sure you even know.
> 
> For instance did you know that the hormone that detects pregnancy in home pg tests, HcG is formed in the placenta? That's not "the woman controlling the fetus". It's definitely a mutual process. Additionally, surfactant in the baby's lungs triggers labor--not the mother's body. So you're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fetus must thrive and to thrive it needs a source for energy and development, the mother's body provides the necessities to develop without it it would die.Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course but the fetus contributes to this as well. It's not like a tumor or a parasite, a comparison the sick Left often makes. It IS a unique few months in the development of ALL humans in that the development must take place inside another human. But the science is now settled, as you all love to say. It is a unique human from the beginning and almost from the beginning has a heart, limbs, etc. And as I said, even contributes to its own development.
Click to expand...

Can the child in the womb exist without any help? No..But you claim it can..


----------



## SweetSue92

Moonglow said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> 
> 
> It is since it is the woman body which is in control of the fetus, not the other way around..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's biologically unsound and scientifically unsound. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I'm not sure you even know.
> 
> For instance did you know that the hormone that detects pregnancy in home pg tests, HcG is formed in the placenta? That's not "the woman controlling the fetus". It's definitely a mutual process. Additionally, surfactant in the baby's lungs triggers labor--not the mother's body. So you're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fetus must thrive and to thrive it needs a source for energy and development, the mother's body provides the necessities to develop without it it would die.Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course but the fetus contributes to this as well. It's not like a tumor or a parasite, a comparison the sick Left often makes. It IS a unique few months in the development of ALL humans in that the development must take place inside another human. But the science is now settled, as you all love to say. It is a unique human from the beginning and almost from the beginning has a heart, limbs, etc. And as I said, even contributes to its own development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can the child in the womb exist without any help? No..But you claim it can..
Click to expand...


A lie, and a stupid one at that. I did not claim a child in the womb can exist without any help. Don't be dumb.


----------



## JoeB131

SweetSue92 said:


> Of course but the fetus contributes to this as well. It's not like a tumor or a parasite, a comparison the sick Left often makes. It IS a unique few months in the development of ALL humans in that the development must take place inside another human. But the science is now settled, as you all love to say. It is a unique human from the beginning and almost from the beginning has a heart, limbs, etc. And as I said, even contributes to its own development.



So what? 

Here's the thing... the world is full with kids who die before their first birthday because they have the bad luck to be born in a third world country.  But that's probably okay by you, since they are a bunch of heathens, anyway... 

The reality is that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to NOT BE PREGNANT.  

No matter how many times you show her pictures of what you salvaged from a medical waste container or scream Jesus at her.


----------



## Flash

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



It is not very "safe" for the child being murdered, is it?


----------



## beagle9

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

George Carlin was a complete idiot. Yeah he had his twisted bullcrap that his demonic minions just ate up like some kind of vampire feast they we're attending while Carlin played the devil himself, but he was a clever idiot was all.

The sad thing is how certain people thought that he was some kind of comedy genius. Well an evil comedy genius maybe.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


“Abortion Industry”

“Not your body”

“Your BABY'S body”

“Separate DNA”

“Abortion is murder”

“Killing babies”

These talking points are among the most stupid and laughable, devoid of merit and factually wrong.


----------



## initforme

All this politicization is going to have more and more women questioning getting pregnant.  Can't say I blame them. Everyone is fighting over what they do. I surely am no fan of abortion so I don't know what the answer is.   The birth rate is the lowest it's been in 42 years from what I have read.  Perhaps this helps things as far as less abortions.  More and more women focusing on careers and money may in the end be a very good thing.  If you aren't sure about wanting kids then simply don't get preggers.  It's not your responsibility to procreate if you don't want to.


----------



## SweetSue92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> “Abortion Industry”
> 
> “Not your body”
> 
> “Your BABY'S body”
> 
> “Separate DNA”
> 
> “Abortion is murder”
> 
> “Killing babies”
> 
> These talking points are among the most stupid and laughable, devoid of merit and factually wrong.
Click to expand...


"Abortion Industry"--it is an industry because they MAKE. MONEY.

"Not your body"--factually correct. The baby is IN your body but not yours. 

"Your baby's body"--see above

"Separate DNA"--you're totally anti-science now. How funny.

"Abortion is murder"--yes

"Killing babies"--that's right. They're not taking out cancer tumors, for which everyone cheers. Or warts. Or cysts. Or any number of other body parts. They are, in fact, Babies. 

How ignorant are you really???


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Those hostile to privacy rights couldn’t care less about ending abortion.

It’s about conservatives using abortion as a wedge issue to further divide the American people, it’s about Republicans using abortion to energize their base, it’s about the right using abortion as a political weapon.


----------



## Penelope

Flash said:


> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.



Another insecure male, that wants to control women.


----------



## SweetSue92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those hostile to privacy rights couldn’t care less about ending abortion.
> 
> It’s about conservatives using abortion as a wedge issue to further divide the American people, it’s about Republicans using abortion to energize their base, it’s about the right using abortion as a political weapon.
Click to expand...


You don't listen. You're too far gone to listen to anyone.

So this is for everybody else:

I believe every human is made in the image of God, so it's deeply sinful and wrong to end the life of one for the convenience of another. And that is that.


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
Click to expand...


What an ignorant statement


----------



## rightwinger

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We also safeguard our rights and protected liberties, we keep government out of the private lives of Americans, and we ensure that government authority is limited.

50 years ago conservatives believed in such things.


----------



## initforme

While I disagree with abortion I do not understand why some don't like contraception.  The pill has been one of the greatest things invented.  Is it perfect?  No.  But it has allowed many women to not get pregnant.  What is the argument against contraception?


----------



## SweetSue92

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
Click to expand...


Um well, the choice is binary. You are going to have that baby or you are not. It is going to come out of you alive and viable or it is not. Right?

If it comes out of you alive and viable, then you have many choices. You can choose to give the baby away in a closed adoption, open adoption, or raise the baby yourself. 

But before that, the choices are not that wide really. Let the baby live or kill it. 

You folks are always trying to complicate what is not that complicated. Really.


----------



## SweetSue92

initforme said:


> While I disagree with abortion I do not understand why some don't like contraception.  The pill has been one of the greatest things invented.  Is it perfect?  No.  But it has allowed many women to not get pregnant.  What is the argument against contraception?



I don't have one.

In a perfect world every baby would be welcomed by married parents. But this is not a perfect world. Therefore, if you MUST have sex, for the love of Pete, use many forms of protection.


----------



## SweetSue92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also safeguard our rights and protected liberties, we keep government out of the private lives of Americans, and we ensure that government authority is limited.
> 
> 50 years ago conservatives believed in such things.
Click to expand...


The ultimate, number one right is LIFE


----------



## initforme

Adoption fees and red tape can be expensive and overwhelming.  This needs to change.  I know a young couple where the lady had a vasectomy before marriage as she didn't want kids.  So they explored adoption.  They then decided it was too expensive and the process cut too much into their free time.


----------



## beagle9

theHawk said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.
Click to expand...

And there is plenty of help for that unless my taxes have been deverted all these years and I didn't know it. The woman's choices after the birth of her child is strictly on her, and if she violates the laws that protect that child then she will pay the consequences. The same laws should also apply to the human life growing in the womb. If the woman does drugs etc while pregnant, and damages her baby in the womb, then she should be held responsible, and she should pay a price. Abortion should be illegal except for some very strict exceptions due to medical issues or rape and incest if immediately reported as a crime.  These things should be taught to the youth in school before they grow into young adults unaware of such things. 

The removal of God from the school systems has open the doors wide open for the devil to just waltz right on in, and to have taken over the weak minds that have been made vulnerable by such idiotic moves in which the new generations have since chosen to follow after or have been duped into following after by the generations of the past, for whom had been working for the evil one ever since their fall.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SweetSue92 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations.
> 
> The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous, naïve, and wrong.

We help by prohibiting government from compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law.

We help by respecting and defending the privacy rights of women.

We help by allowing a woman, her family, and her doctor make decisions as to whether to have a child or not – not the state.


----------



## initforme

Right on Sue.  Why this nation doesn't push contraception so much more is crazy.  That alone would drop abortion rates significantly.  Declining birth rates are only an issue for corporatists who want a cheap labor force to exploit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
Click to expand...

Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.


----------



## SweetSue92

beagle9 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is plenty of help for that unless my taxes have been deverted all these years and I didn't know it. The woman's choices after the birth of her child is strictly on her, and if she violates the laws that protect that child then she will pay the consequences. The same laws should also apply to the human life growing in the womb. If the woman does drugs etc while pregnant, and damages her baby in the womb, then she should be held responsible, and she should pay a price. Abortion should be illegal except for some very strict exceptions due to medical issues or rape and incest if immediately reported as a crime.  These things should be taught to the youth in school before they grow into young adults unaware of such things. The removal of God from the school systems has open the doors wide open for the devil to just waltz right on in, and to have taken over the weak minds that have been made vulnerable by such idiotic moves in which the new generations have since chosen or have been duped on by the generations of the past whom had been working for the evil one ever since their fall.
Click to expand...


This post reminds me of another REALLY stupid and evil talking points, 

"To save the life of the mother"

This is almost never necessary--and NOT EVER necessary in the third trimester. You DO NOT kill the baby to save the mother. You deliver the baby early, attempt to save the baby's life, and then save the mother.

In many EARLY cases of "to save the life of the mother", the pregnancy is not viable at any rate. Example: ectopic pregnancy, where the pregnancy has implanted in the fallopian tube. That pregnancy will not develop into a viable baby; it is doomed. You are not saving a baby's life. Or a blighted ovum, which happened to a family member. There was a "pregnancy sac", but no baby at all. No heartbeat, nothing. She had a D&C.

Just more talking points.


----------



## initforme

Perhaps contraception should be taught....and the responsibilities of having kids should be taught.  Then young women can understand it and decide whether or not to have kids.  And it's ok to choose not getting pregnant.  The nation supports that.


----------



## SweetSue92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
Click to expand...


Lies.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> George Carlin was a complete idiot. Yeah he had his twisted bullcrap that his demonic minions just ate up like some kind of vampire feast they we're attending while Carlin played the devil himself, but he was a clever idiot was all.
> 
> The sad thing is how certain people thought that he was some kind of comedy genius. Well an evil comedy genius maybe.
Click to expand...

And?

It doesn’t change the truth expressed: the hypocrisy of conservatives.


----------



## beagle9

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Safe for who ? Sure as heck isn't safe for the baby.


----------



## Flash

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course but the fetus contributes to this as well. It's not like a tumor or a parasite, a comparison the sick Left often makes. It IS a unique few months in the development of ALL humans in that the development must take place inside another human. But the science is now settled, as you all love to say. It is a unique human from the beginning and almost from the beginning has a heart, limbs, etc. And as I said, even contributes to its own development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Here's the thing... the world is full with kids who die before their first birthday because they have the bad luck to be born in a third world country.  But that's probably okay by you, since they are a bunch of heathens, anyway...
> 
> The reality is that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to NOT BE PREGNANT.
> 
> No matter how many times you show her pictures of what you salvaged from a medical waste container or scream Jesus at her.
Click to expand...



The best way for a woman not be pregnant is for her not to spread out her legs.  Either that or insist that the guy fucking her uses a 25 cent condom.  Bets the hell out having to murder her child later, doesn't it?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Carlin was a dumbass left wing bigot comedian.
We spend trillions to help the poor.
He should have never taken a tax deduction if he was honest.


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
Click to expand...



Another stupid immoral asshole Moon Bat trying to justify the murder of children for the sake of convenience.  Despicable!


----------



## initforme

Christianity focuses on helping the least among us....first and foremost.  So it is our duty to support them.


----------



## theHawk

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> George Carlin was a complete idiot. Yeah he had his twisted bullcrap that his demonic minions just ate up like some kind of vampire feast they we're attending while Carlin played the devil himself, but he was a clever idiot was all.
> 
> The sad thing is how certain people thought that he was some kind of comedy genius. Well an evil comedy genius maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> It doesn’t change the truth expressed: the hypocrisy of conservatives.
Click to expand...


Presenting strawman arguments isn’t expressing any truth.


----------



## rightwinger

SweetSue92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um well, the choice is binary. You are going to have that baby or you are not. It is going to come out of you alive and viable or it is not. Right?
> 
> If it comes out of you alive and viable, then you have many choices. You can choose to give the baby away in a closed adoption, open adoption, or raise the baby yourself.
> 
> But before that, the choices are not that wide really. Let the baby live or kill it.
> 
> You folks are always trying to complicate what is not that complicated. Really.
Click to expand...

Well, let’s keep it binary

Should you have the baby or not?

If you have the baby, will you lose your job. Yes or No
Will you be able to afford the medical expenses. Yes or No
Once the baby is born, will you keep it. Yes or No
If you put it up for adoption, can our society handle the additional babies.  Yes or No
If the baby is deformed, will our society fund the additional expenses. Yes or No
If you keep the baby. Will you be able to properly care for the infant. Yes or No

All binary choices a pregnant mother needs to make


----------



## theHawk

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
Click to expand...


^ Another insecure female, that wants to control everyone.


----------



## Faun

SweetSue92 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies.
Click to expand...

Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Everyone is pro-life.

Everyone wishes to see the practice of abortion end – that’s not the issue.

The issue is that the solution to the problem of abortion must comport with the Constitution and the right to privacy, where those who seek to ‘ban’ abortion – such as Republican lawmakers in Alabama – are in violation of the Constitution, the right to privacy, and the rule of law.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> George Carlin was a complete idiot. Yeah he had his twisted bullcrap that his demonic minions just ate up like some kind of vampire feast they we're attending while Carlin played the devil himself, but he was a clever idiot was all.
> 
> The sad thing is how certain people thought that he was some kind of comedy genius. Well an evil comedy genius maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> It doesn’t change the truth expressed: the hypocrisy of conservatives.
Click to expand...

Conservative's are the only hypocrite's in your mind ??? Funny how that word is thrown from the leftist on the issues when losing the battle, yet they are some of the biggest offenders when it comes to that word. It's laughable really. How's about people just doing their level best to do the right thing in life, is that to much to ask for these days ???


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Everyone is pro-life.
> 
> Everyone wishes to see the practice of abortion end – that’s not the issue.
> 
> The issue is that the solution to the problem of abortion must comport with the Constitution and the right to privacy, where those who seek to ‘ban’ abortion – such as Republican lawmakers in Alabama – are in violation of the Constitution, the right to privacy, and the rule of law.


The right to privacy and the rule of law never advocated for the murder of the unborn who are human beings, otherwise once living beings are in that womb, then they should be covered under the right to life.


----------



## beagle9

Faun said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Says who, you ????? LOL


----------



## beagle9

initforme said:


> All this politicization is going to have more and more women questioning getting pregnant.  Can't say I blame them. Everyone is fighting over what they do. I surely am no fan of abortion so I don't know what the answer is.   The birth rate is the lowest it's been in 42 years from what I have read.  Perhaps this helps things as far as less abortions.  More and more women focusing on careers and money may in the end be a very good thing.  If you aren't sure about wanting kids then simply don't get preggers.  It's not your responsibility to procreate if you don't want to.


The one's confused by the issue shouldn't get pregnant, because if they are that dumb, then they would be the ones dumb enough to kill their baby.


----------



## Penelope

theHawk said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Another insecure female, that wants to control everyone.
Click to expand...


No I do not want to control anyone, I do not insist people give birth or abort.   I am pro choice.

You are an insecure man, lording it over females.


----------



## beagle9

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
Click to expand...

Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.


----------



## Faun

beagle9 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who, you ????? LOL
Click to expand...

No, Americans. A vast majority want it available under some conditions. Plus, some states have passed laws permitted it; meaning abortion would still be legal and available to women in those states even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned.


----------



## rightwinger

Want to end abortion?
What are your options?

1. Repeal Roe v Wade
You will still have abortions, they will just be more inconvenient or risky in some states 

2. Reduce the need for an abortion
Provide FREE Birth Control, Education, Free and Low-cost maternity and neonatal care, Expand adoption services, support new mothers with healthcare, childcare and family services


----------



## Penelope

beagle9 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
Click to expand...


Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.


----------



## theHawk

Penelope said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Another insecure female, that wants to control everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, I do not insist people give birth or abort.   I am pro choice.
> 
> You are an insecure man, lording it over females.
Click to expand...


You’re a feminist and a statist.  Your whole Agenda is about the state controlling everyone else while empowering you to do whatever you want.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those hostile to privacy rights couldn’t care less about ending abortion.
> 
> It’s about conservatives using abortion as a wedge issue to further divide the American people, it’s about Republicans using abortion to energize their base, it’s about the right using abortion as a political weapon.
Click to expand...

If so, it's a great political issue because it's one that the left is wrong on.


----------



## rightwinger

beagle9 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
Click to expand...


Many pregnant women bring God into their lives. They pray they are not really pregnant. Besides, everyone knows good Christian girls don’t get pregnant


----------



## Penelope

theHawk said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Another insecure female, that wants to control everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, I do not insist people give birth or abort.   I am pro choice.
> 
> You are an insecure man, lording it over females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re a feminist and a statist.  Your whole Agenda is about the state controlling everyone else while empowering you to do whatever you want.
Click to expand...


I am for freedom of choice, you are insecure and want to control females.  All men who want to control females should see a shrink to talk about their insecurities.


----------



## theHawk

Penelope said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Another insecure female, that wants to control everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, I do not insist people give birth or abort.   I am pro choice.
> 
> You are an insecure man, lording it over females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re a feminist and a statist.  Your whole Agenda is about the state controlling everyone else while empowering you to do whatever you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am for freedom of choice, you are insecure and want to control females.  All men who want to control females should see a shrink to talk about their insecurities.
Click to expand...


So it outlawing rape “controlling men”?


----------



## Rustic

Baby butchery is far too profitable to organizations like planned parenthood to be resisted…


----------



## beagle9

Penelope said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
Click to expand...

And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*


----------



## Penelope

beagle9 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
Click to expand...


I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.


----------



## Moonglow

Penelope said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
Click to expand...

Their God killed off almost every last man, woma, child and fetus by drowning and exposure....Yet they claim the moral high ground with their God.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also safeguard our rights and protected liberties, we keep government out of the private lives of Americans, and we ensure that government authority is limited.
> 
> 50 years ago conservatives believed in such things.
Click to expand...

We believed in murdering the unborn ??


----------



## Penelope

Moonglow said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their God killed off almost every last man, woma, child and fetus by drowning and exposure....Yet they claim the moral high ground with their God.
Click to expand...


This Godly country is starving Iranian people now.


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> [
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, .




Liar! You are sure as hell "controlling" that child when you kill it, aren't you?.


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> [
> 
> This Godly country is starving Iranian people now.



You are confused Moon Bat.  The Mullahs are starving the Iranian people.

You  know who the Mullahs are, don't you?  They are Obama's good buddies.  The ones that he gave barrels and barrels of cash to.


----------



## Penelope

Flash said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar! You are sure as hell "controlling" that child when you kill it, aren't you?.
Click to expand...


No I'm not, I am pro choice.  You are controlling women,  you are an insecure male. I know what is best for women.  You are so insecure, along with those 25 white males who made the law in Alabama.


----------



## beagle9

Penelope said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
Click to expand...

You don't advocate either way eh ??? A fence walker eh ?? God said "I would have you either hot or cold than lukewarm", and if lukewarm then he will spew you out. Not good to be lukewarm on the issues as it shows uncertainty, and confusion where there shouldn't be any.


----------



## irosie91

starvation in Iran?


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.



If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.


----------



## Penelope

beagle9 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't advocate either way eh ??? A fence walker eh ?? God said "I would have you either hot or cold than lukewarm", and if lukewarm then he will spew you out. Not good to be lukewarm on the issues as it shows uncertainty, and confusion where there shouldn't be any.
Click to expand...


I am pro choice.  God said LOL, no, men wrote the bible, whoever wrote it, John of Giscala  didn't like any churches in Revelation, had a problem with them all.
John of Giscala - Wikipedia


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations.
> 
> The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is ridiculous, naïve, and wrong.
> 
> We help by prohibiting government from compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law.
> 
> We help by respecting and defending the privacy rights of women.
> 
> We help by allowing a woman, her family, and her doctor make decisions as to whether to have a child or not – not the state.
Click to expand...

You help by advocating that a woman be allowed to murder her unborn child if she so chooses ??


----------



## SweetSue92

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um well, the choice is binary. You are going to have that baby or you are not. It is going to come out of you alive and viable or it is not. Right?
> 
> If it comes out of you alive and viable, then you have many choices. You can choose to give the baby away in a closed adoption, open adoption, or raise the baby yourself.
> 
> But before that, the choices are not that wide really. Let the baby live or kill it.
> 
> You folks are always trying to complicate what is not that complicated. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let’s keep it binary
> 
> Should you have the baby or not?
> 
> If you have the baby, will you lose your job. Yes or No
> Will you be able to afford the medical expenses. Yes or No
> Once the baby is born, will you keep it. Yes or No
> If you put it up for adoption, can our society handle the additional babies.  Yes or No
> If the baby is deformed, will our society fund the additional expenses. Yes or No
> If you keep the baby. Will you be able to properly care for the infant. Yes or No
> 
> All binary choices a pregnant mother needs to make
Click to expand...


"Shoulds" are not binary. The WILL is binary. She will either birth the baby viable or she will kill it.


----------



## SweetSue92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Everyone is pro-life.
> 
> Everyone wishes to see the practice of abortion end – that’s not the issue.
> 
> The issue is that the solution to the problem of abortion must comport with the Constitution and the right to privacy, where those who seek to ‘ban’ abortion – such as Republican lawmakers in Alabama – are in violation of the Constitution, the right to privacy, and the rule of law.



That's not even close to true.  "Shout your abortion". Plenty of ghouls on your side are proud of their abortions.


----------



## SweetSue92

Faun said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


No. Make me.


----------



## beagle9

Penelope said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't advocate either way eh ??? A fence walker eh ?? God said "I would have you either hot or cold than lukewarm", and if lukewarm then he will spew you out. Not good to be lukewarm on the issues as it shows uncertainty, and confusion where there shouldn't be any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice.  God said, no men wrote the bible, he didn't like any churches in Revelation, had a problem with them all.
Click to expand...

You study the Bible so you can use it against God, and the Christian's in a twisting of it, just like y'all do with the Constitution ??


----------



## Moonglow

Penelope said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their God killed off almost every last man, woma, child and fetus by drowning and exposure....Yet they claim the moral high ground with their God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This Godly country is starving Iranian people now.
Click to expand...

Hey, you can't have a God without supporting a Devil.


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Another insecure female, that wants to control everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, I do not insist people give birth or abort.   I am pro choice.
> 
> You are an insecure man, lording it over females.
Click to expand...


No one wants to stand over your uterus to "lord over it", Penny. Stop it. It's a demeaning, outdated argument. 

do better


----------



## Moonglow

Flash said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
Click to expand...

Yet it is voluntary..


----------



## SweetSue92

beagle9 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> 
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't advocate either way eh ??? A fence walker eh ?? God said "I would have you either hot or cold than lukewarm", and if lukewarm then he will spew you out. Not good to be lukewarm on the issues as it shows uncertainty, and confusion where there shouldn't be any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice.  God said, no men wrote the bible, he didn't like any churches in Revelation, had a problem with them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You study the Bible so you can use it against God, and the Christian's in a twisting of it, just like y'all do with the Constitution ??
Click to expand...


Don't give her that credit. She doesn't know the Bible.


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't advocate either way eh ??? A fence walker eh ?? God said "I would have you either hot or cold than lukewarm", and if lukewarm then he will spew you out. Not good to be lukewarm on the issues as it shows uncertainty, and confusion where there shouldn't be any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice.  God said LOL, no, men wrote the bible, whoever wrote it, John of Giscala  didn't like any churches in Revelation, had a problem with them all.
> John of Giscala - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Penny doesn't know why Philadelphia is named Philadelphia.

This is Penny's Bible knowledge, everyone.


----------



## Penelope

Flash said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
Click to expand...


I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.


----------



## jknowgood

anynameyouwish said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me that conservatives who post "trespassers will be shot" on their property don't really believe that "all life is precious".......
> 
> a woman can't have an abortion but you can murder some poor guy who accidentally steps on your property....
Click to expand...

You can't legally shoot someone who steps on your property dumbass, and you don't accidentally step in someone's house. Lol


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Another insecure female, that wants to control everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, I do not insist people give birth or abort.   I am pro choice.
> 
> You are an insecure man, lording it over females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re a feminist and a statist.  Your whole Agenda is about the state controlling everyone else while empowering you to do whatever you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am for freedom of choice, you are insecure and want to control females.  All men who want to control females should see a shrink to talk about their insecurities.
Click to expand...


Your posts are so dumb they actually hurt. They do. They hurt, Penny, the way you have just swallowed ALL the stupid talking points and spit them out.

it's embarrassing. 

do better


----------



## progressive hunter

anynameyouwish said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me that conservatives who post "trespassers will be shot" on their property don't really believe that "all life is precious".......
> 
> a woman can't have an abortion but you can murder some poor guy who accidentally steps on your property....
Click to expand...



at this point there is no hope for you


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the word...Choice?


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
Click to expand...


Bring proof and evidence that this poster is insecure. 

Bring it, Penny. Other than he does not want unborn babies to die. Whatchu got?


----------



## Penelope

SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Another insecure female, that wants to control everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, I do not insist people give birth or abort.   I am pro choice.
> 
> You are an insecure man, lording it over females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re a feminist and a statist.  Your whole Agenda is about the state controlling everyone else while empowering you to do whatever you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am for freedom of choice, you are insecure and want to control females.  All men who want to control females should see a shrink to talk about their insecurities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are so dumb they actually hurt. They do. They hurt, Penny, the way you have just swallowed ALL the stupid talking points and spit them out.
> 
> it's embarrassing.
> 
> do better
Click to expand...


I am unabashedly pro choice and you are not going to change my mind.


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar! You are sure as hell "controlling" that child when you kill it, aren't you?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not, I am pro choice.  You are controlling women,  you are an insecure male. I know what is best for women.  You are so insecure, along with those 25 white males who made the law in Alabama.
Click to expand...


I am a woman and you SURE don't speak for me. DO NOT EVER speak for me. EVER

EVER.

EVER


----------



## progressive hunter

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


safe for who??? the child dies,,,


----------



## rightwinger

SweetSue92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um well, the choice is binary. You are going to have that baby or you are not. It is going to come out of you alive and viable or it is not. Right?
> 
> If it comes out of you alive and viable, then you have many choices. You can choose to give the baby away in a closed adoption, open adoption, or raise the baby yourself.
> 
> But before that, the choices are not that wide really. Let the baby live or kill it.
> 
> You folks are always trying to complicate what is not that complicated. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let’s keep it binary
> 
> Should you have the baby or not?
> 
> If you have the baby, will you lose your job. Yes or No
> Will you be able to afford the medical expenses. Yes or No
> Once the baby is born, will you keep it. Yes or No
> If you put it up for adoption, can our society handle the additional babies.  Yes or No
> If the baby is deformed, will our society fund the additional expenses. Yes or No
> If you keep the baby. Will you be able to properly care for the infant. Yes or No
> 
> All binary choices a pregnant mother needs to make
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Shoulds" are not binary. The WILL is binary. She will either birth the baby viable or she will kill it.
Click to expand...

Of course should is binary
It denotes a yes or no choice

Until you can satisfy all of those choices, you will have to deal with abortion


----------



## jknowgood

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Abortion isn't safe, you can die from it. Also have complications that can affect a woman for life.


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Another insecure female, that wants to control everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, I do not insist people give birth or abort.   I am pro choice.
> 
> You are an insecure man, lording it over females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re a feminist and a statist.  Your whole Agenda is about the state controlling everyone else while empowering you to do whatever you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am for freedom of choice, you are insecure and want to control females.  All men who want to control females should see a shrink to talk about their insecurities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are so dumb they actually hurt. They do. They hurt, Penny, the way you have just swallowed ALL the stupid talking points and spit them out.
> 
> it's embarrassing.
> 
> do better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am unabashedly pro choice and you are not going to change my mind.
Click to expand...


I know, Penny. People with flexible thinking, who remain intelligent and open, have the capacity to change their minds.

Yes. Ponder what that says about you.


----------



## Penelope

SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bring proof and evidence that this poster is insecure.
> 
> Bring it, Penny. Other than he does not want unborn babies to die. Whatchu got?
Click to expand...


He obviously is, he is a male trying to lord it over a female and what is worst females in general.  He might even be a rapist or a father who impregnates his dtr.  I know one thing, he is a male.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> “Abortion Industry”
> 
> “Not your body”
> 
> “Your BABY'S body”
> 
> “Separate DNA”
> 
> “Abortion is murder”
> 
> “Killing babies”
> 
> These talking points are among the most stupid and laughable, devoid of merit and factually wrong.
Click to expand...



only in your mind,,


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bring proof and evidence that this poster is insecure.
> 
> Bring it, Penny. Other than he does not want unborn babies to die. Whatchu got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He obviously is, he is a male trying to lord it over a female and what is worst females in general.  He might even be a rapist or a father who impregnates his dtr.  I know one thing, he is a male.
Click to expand...


WHAT. What, exactly? WHAT is he trying to "lord over" females?


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
Click to expand...


What stupid thing could she mean here, I wonder? "I"m even for WHITE FEMALES...oh horrors" EVEN THE WHITES

You're horrible Penny


----------



## jknowgood

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations.
> 
> The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if charities were getting the job done, we wouldn't need government agencies.
> 
> Hey, here's a crazy idea. Let's get rid of all the "White People Welfare"- social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, FHA and VA loans. Instead, let's let all these white people rely on "Charity" when they hit a rough patch.
Click to expand...

You do realize if you got to keep your social security taxes you pay for your life. You would be better off than letting the government give it back to ya?


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it should support education (proper education on such matters), and bring God back into the American school systems in order to help guide that education in a spiritual way, along with our humanly way's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bring proof and evidence that this poster is insecure.
> 
> Bring it, Penny. Other than he does not want unborn babies to die. Whatchu got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He obviously is, he is a male trying to lord it over a female and what is worst females in general.  He might even be a rapist or a father who impregnates his dtr.  I know one thing, he is a male.
Click to expand...


Is there one--just ONE--talking point the Left has fed you that you have NOT swallowed whole???

Just one Penny.

Give me some hope today.


----------



## Flash

SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar! You are sure as hell "controlling" that child when you kill it, aren't you?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not, I am pro choice.  You are controlling women,  you are an insecure male. I know what is best for women.  You are so insecure, along with those 25 white males who made the law in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a woman and you SURE don't speak for me. DO NOT EVER speak for me. EVER
> 
> EVER.
> 
> EVER
Click to expand...



Nor does she speak for my wife who spent ten years counseling girls against having an abortion and who  facilitated help for those girls that decided to not to kill their child.

My wife will tell you the best feeling in the world is for her to meet a young lady that she helped to influence not having an abortion and seeing the love between the mother and the child that was almost killed.


----------



## beagle9

SweetSue92 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is plenty of help for that unless my taxes have been deverted all these years and I didn't know it. The woman's choices after the birth of her child is strictly on her, and if she violates the laws that protect that child then she will pay the consequences. The same laws should also apply to the human life growing in the womb. If the woman does drugs etc while pregnant, and damages her baby in the womb, then she should be held responsible, and she should pay a price. Abortion should be illegal except for some very strict exceptions due to medical issues or rape and incest if immediately reported as a crime.  These things should be taught to the youth in school before they grow into young adults unaware of such things. The removal of God from the school systems has open the doors wide open for the devil to just waltz right on in, and to have taken over the weak minds that have been made vulnerable by such idiotic moves in which the new generations have since chosen or have been duped on by the generations of the past whom had been working for the evil one ever since their fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post reminds me of another REALLY stupid and evil talking points,
> 
> "To save the life of the mother"
> 
> This is almost never necessary--and NOT EVER necessary in the third trimester. You DO NOT kill the baby to save the mother. You deliver the baby early, attempt to save the baby's life, and then save the mother.
> 
> In many EARLY cases of "to save the life of the mother", the pregnancy is not viable at any rate. Example: ectopic pregnancy, where the pregnancy has implanted in the fallopian tube. That pregnancy will not develop into a viable baby; it is doomed. You are not saving a baby's life. Or a blighted ovum, which happened to a family member. There was a "pregnancy sac", but no baby at all. No heartbeat, nothing. She had a D&C.
> 
> Just more talking points.
Click to expand...

Ok, so was this something that was spoken back during the times when mother's naturally birthed their children, and this because technology wasn't available back then ???  Where did such speak come from ??? Otherwise if at an early stage in a pregnancy, and if it were to be causing the mother to be deathly ill, then how was that situation dealt with back then ?? Otherwise is this where the phrase came from, where as the mother's life came first in such a situation ??

Oh and don't call me or anything I write evil ok ??? You can debate me, and we can educate each other, but don't use the word evil in connection to any of my post.

I can learn just like anyone on the issues.


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
Click to expand...



Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.

If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.


----------



## jknowgood

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
Click to expand...

Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?


----------



## Penelope

Flash said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar! You are sure as hell "controlling" that child when you kill it, aren't you?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not, I am pro choice.  You are controlling women,  you are an insecure male. I know what is best for women.  You are so insecure, along with those 25 white males who made the law in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a woman and you SURE don't speak for me. DO NOT EVER speak for me. EVER
> 
> EVER.
> 
> EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does she speak for my wife who spent ten years counseling girls against having an abortion and who  facilitated help for those girls that decided to not to kill their child.
> 
> My wife will tell you the best feeling in the world is for her to meet a young lady that she helped to influence not having an abortion and seeing the love between the mother and the child that was almost killed.
Click to expand...




SweetSue92 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you cons are not godly people.
> 
> 
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bring proof and evidence that this poster is insecure.
> 
> Bring it, Penny. Other than he does not want unborn babies to die. Whatchu got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He obviously is, he is a male trying to lord it over a female and what is worst females in general.  He might even be a rapist or a father who impregnates his dtr.  I know one thing, he is a male.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there one--just ONE--talking point the Left has fed you that you have NOT swallowed whole???
> 
> Just one Penny.
> 
> Give me some hope today.
Click to expand...


I have always been pro choice and pro BC and pro rubbers, prevention is the best thing.  That goes for STD's as well.


----------



## jknowgood

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
Click to expand...

They have free birth control, what other choice should we give them?


----------



## Penelope

Flash said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.
> 
> If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.
Click to expand...


Its too bad your wife doesn't teach females how not to get pregnant and pass around STD's.


----------



## Penelope

jknowgood said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
Click to expand...


Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?


----------



## Faun

SweetSue92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Make me.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Ah, you’re only 4 years old. Sorry, I didn’t realize. Regardless, I wasn’t making you. I was suggesting you move to a conservative country that bans abortion if you don’t like it here.


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar! You are sure as hell "controlling" that child when you kill it, aren't you?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not, I am pro choice.  You are controlling women,  you are an insecure male. I know what is best for women.  You are so insecure, along with those 25 white males who made the law in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a woman and you SURE don't speak for me. DO NOT EVER speak for me. EVER
> 
> EVER.
> 
> EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does she speak for my wife who spent ten years counseling girls against having an abortion and who  facilitated help for those girls that decided to not to kill their child.
> 
> My wife will tell you the best feeling in the world is for her to meet a young lady that she helped to influence not having an abortion and seeing the love between the mother and the child that was almost killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you advocating for the murders of the unborn are ???  You are correct that we cons aren't (g)odly people, we are *Godly people*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bring proof and evidence that this poster is insecure.
> 
> Bring it, Penny. Other than he does not want unborn babies to die. Whatchu got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He obviously is, he is a male trying to lord it over a female and what is worst females in general.  He might even be a rapist or a father who impregnates his dtr.  I know one thing, he is a male.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there one--just ONE--talking point the Left has fed you that you have NOT swallowed whole???
> 
> Just one Penny.
> 
> Give me some hope today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have always been pro choice and pro BC and pro rubbers, prevention is the best thing.  That goes for STD's as well.
Click to expand...



But yet you support the killing of the child if things don't go the way you planned.  That is despicable.

You stupid Moon Bats  are always spout horseshit about "sensible gun control laws".  How about "sensible abortion laws"?

You can't have an abortion until you ave exhausted all avenues of placing the child after it is born.  You don't get to murder the child if it can be taken care of after birth.  Isn't that the sensible thing to do?


----------



## jknowgood

Liberals are for killing a baby after it is born. Do that to a puppy and they want the death penalty. That is how Looney the liberals are.


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.
> 
> If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its too bad your wife doesn't teach females how not to get pregnant and pass around STD's.
Click to expand...



Actually she did that with her counseling.

We don't have daughters but we sure taught our sons the responsibility of not knocking a girl up.

Personal responsibility is something you stupid Moon Bats hate with a passion.  It is like The Devil to you.


----------



## Faun

jknowgood said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
Click to expand...

Why? Women can enjoy sex as much as they want. If they get pregnant, they can simply have an abortion.


----------



## jknowgood

Penelope said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
Click to expand...

You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.


----------



## jknowgood

Faun said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? Women can enjoy sex as much as they want. If they get pregnant, they can simply have an abortion.
Click to expand...

If she is going to have sex, why not use protection. Why should an innocent baby be murdered for the woman not being responsible?


----------



## SweetSue92

Faun said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Make me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Ah, you’re only 4 years old. Sorry, I didn’t realize. Regardless, I wasn’t making you. I was suggesting you move to a conservative country that bans abortion if you don’t like it here.
Click to expand...


"Make me" is a valid argument for Totalitarians. 

Make me. Pal.


----------



## Penelope

Flash said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar! You are sure as hell "controlling" that child when you kill it, aren't you?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not, I am pro choice.  You are controlling women,  you are an insecure male. I know what is best for women.  You are so insecure, along with those 25 white males who made the law in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a woman and you SURE don't speak for me. DO NOT EVER speak for me. EVER
> 
> EVER.
> 
> EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does she speak for my wife who spent ten years counseling girls against having an abortion and who  facilitated help for those girls that decided to not to kill their child.
> 
> My wife will tell you the best feeling in the world is for her to meet a young lady that she helped to influence not having an abortion and seeing the love between the mother and the child that was almost killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bring proof and evidence that this poster is insecure.
> 
> Bring it, Penny. Other than he does not want unborn babies to die. Whatchu got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He obviously is, he is a male trying to lord it over a female and what is worst females in general.  He might even be a rapist or a father who impregnates his dtr.  I know one thing, he is a male.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there one--just ONE--talking point the Left has fed you that you have NOT swallowed whole???
> 
> Just one Penny.
> 
> Give me some hope today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have always been pro choice and pro BC and pro rubbers, prevention is the best thing.  That goes for STD's as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But yet you support the killing of the child if things don't go the way you planned.  That is despicable.
> 
> You stupid Moon Bats  are always spout horseshit about "sensible gun control laws".  How about "sensible abortion laws"?
> 
> You can't have an abortion until you ave exhausted all avenues of placing the child after it is born.  You don't get to murder the child if it can be taken care of after birth.  Isn't that the sensible thing to do?
Click to expand...


I am for prevention, is your wife?  Does she know how females get pg, that means the BC and or rubber is not effective or they didn't use anything at all, that is where it starts.  PREVENTION OF UNWANTED PREGNACY AND STD'S.


----------



## bodecea

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


So...you think that privacy...a person's right to control their own body is a bad argument?   Very interesting.


----------



## Faun

jknowgood said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? Women can enjoy sex as much as they want. If they get pregnant, they can simply have an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she is going to have sex, why not use protection. Why should an innocent baby be murdered for the woman not being responsible?
Click to expand...

sometimes protection isn’t available when you’re getting it on. Sometimes, protection fails. Still, it’s not murdering a baby. Murder is illegal while abortion is not.


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not, I am pro choice.  You are controlling women,  you are an insecure male. I know what is best for women.  You are so insecure, along with those 25 white males who made the law in Alabama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a woman and you SURE don't speak for me. DO NOT EVER speak for me. EVER
> 
> EVER.
> 
> EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does she speak for my wife who spent ten years counseling girls against having an abortion and who  facilitated help for those girls that decided to not to kill their child.
> 
> My wife will tell you the best feeling in the world is for her to meet a young lady that she helped to influence not having an abortion and seeing the love between the mother and the child that was almost killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bring proof and evidence that this poster is insecure.
> 
> Bring it, Penny. Other than he does not want unborn babies to die. Whatchu got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He obviously is, he is a male trying to lord it over a female and what is worst females in general.  He might even be a rapist or a father who impregnates his dtr.  I know one thing, he is a male.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there one--just ONE--talking point the Left has fed you that you have NOT swallowed whole???
> 
> Just one Penny.
> 
> Give me some hope today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have always been pro choice and pro BC and pro rubbers, prevention is the best thing.  That goes for STD's as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But yet you support the killing of the child if things don't go the way you planned.  That is despicable.
> 
> You stupid Moon Bats  are always spout horseshit about "sensible gun control laws".  How about "sensible abortion laws"?
> 
> You can't have an abortion until you ave exhausted all avenues of placing the child after it is born.  You don't get to murder the child if it can be taken care of after birth.  Isn't that the sensible thing to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am for prevention, is your wife?  Does she know how females get pg, that means the BC and or rubber is not effective or they didn't use anything at all, that is where it starts.  PREVENTION OF UNWANTED PREGNACY AND STD'S.
Click to expand...



My wife is for not killing a child for the irresponsibility of its parents.  Are you?


----------



## jknowgood

Faun said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? Women can enjoy sex as much as they want. If they get pregnant, they can simply have an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she is going to have sex, why not use protection. Why should an innocent baby be murdered for the woman not being responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sometimes protection isn’t available when you’re getting it on. Sometimes, protection fails. Still, it’s not murdering a baby. Murder is illegal while abortion is not.
Click to expand...

Science is proving you wrong on that one.


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.
> 
> If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.
Click to expand...

Support the right of a mother to decide whether she should have more children. 
Blacks have more abortions because they are more likely to be economically disadvantaged 

What do anti abortion conservatives call poor black women who keep their children?
Welfare Queens


----------



## Faun

SweetSue92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Make me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Ah, you’re only 4 years old. Sorry, I didn’t realize. Regardless, I wasn’t making you. I was suggesting you move to a conservative country that bans abortion if you don’t like it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Make me" is a valid argument for Totalitarians.
> 
> Make me. Pal.
Click to expand...

Again, it’s about choice. Something you clearly understand.

As in women have the choice to terminate their pregnancies if that’s what they want.

You have the choice to move to a conservative country where abortions are outlawed if you want.


----------



## Faun

jknowgood said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? Women can enjoy sex as much as they want. If they get pregnant, they can simply have an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she is going to have sex, why not use protection. Why should an innocent baby be murdered for the woman not being responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sometimes protection isn’t available when you’re getting it on. Sometimes, protection fails. Still, it’s not murdering a baby. Murder is illegal while abortion is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is proving you wrong on that one.
Click to expand...

Oh? How so?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


‘My body, my choice’ is in fact a perfectly appropriate and compelling argument, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the right to privacy:

“It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty[.] The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.” (_Planned Parenthood v. Casey _(1992)).

Consequently, as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, a woman alone has the right to make decisions concerning her bodily integrity absent unwarranted interference from the state – decisions unmitigated by the embryo/fetus she is carrying.

Moreover, the notion that the embryo/fetus somehow ‘overrides’ a woman’s right to privacy is likewise as a fact of law wrong:

‘…an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’ (_Casey, ibid_)

The ‘argument,’ therefore, that a woman is somehow ‘enslaved’ by a developing organism not yet a person fails, devoid of merit and logic, and in no manner justifying the state’s effort to compel a woman to give birth against her will.


----------



## jknowgood

Faun said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Women can enjoy sex as much as they want. If they get pregnant, they can simply have an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she is going to have sex, why not use protection. Why should an innocent baby be murdered for the woman not being responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sometimes protection isn’t available when you’re getting it on. Sometimes, protection fails. Still, it’s not murdering a baby. Murder is illegal while abortion is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is proving you wrong on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? How so?
Click to expand...

4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.


----------



## BlueGin

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


That only those against abortion are obligated to adopt children ,foster or help the needy financially.

Liberals believe they are exempt from everything based on the way they vote..as if their “ vote” absolves them from charity or volunteer work. It doesn’t.


----------



## Penelope

jknowgood said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
Click to expand...



What about incest?


----------



## BlueGin

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Must be why a majority of secular outreach programs are run by conservatives and Christians.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand the word...Choice?
Click to expand...

The authoritarian right fears the word ‘choice’ – hence their desire to compel conformity and punish dissent, such as seeking to criminalize the choice a woman might make.


----------



## BlueGin

theHawk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
Click to expand...

They want to control everyone’s body. Notice how their new argument is for men to get forced vasectomies. Typical feminist hypocrisy.


----------



## Meister

Penelope said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
Click to expand...

I'm pro life, but......I feel that rape, incest and health of the mother are in the forefront 
As for incest, I don't think that a 12 or 13 year old should be mentally scarred more than she 
already has by the act itself.
Some may question my saying that I'm pro life....I am, but for the asterisks.


----------



## jknowgood

Penelope said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
Click to expand...

My God when you redefined marriage you all ready opened the door to normalize it. In 2015 a father and daughter went to New Jersey to get married because it's legal there. Oh and they plan to have children. Liberal policies at work. You are trying to normalize incest. Next is pedophilia.


----------



## miketx

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?








Whatever happened to personal responsibility? And then you have a butchering monster like Sandra Fluke who wants to screw everything she can and make the gov pay for killing the babies.


----------



## Faun

jknowgood said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Women can enjoy sex as much as they want. If they get pregnant, they can simply have an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> If she is going to have sex, why not use protection. Why should an innocent baby be murdered for the woman not being responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sometimes protection isn’t available when you’re getting it on. Sometimes, protection fails. Still, it’s not murdering a baby. Murder is illegal while abortion is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is proving you wrong on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.
Click to expand...

Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.


----------



## rightwinger

BlueGin said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want to control everyone’s body. Notice how their new argument is for men to get forced vasectomies. Typical feminist hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

They are noting the hypocrisy of men who make anti abortion laws


----------



## rightwinger

jknowgood said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God when you redefined marriage you all ready opened the door to normalize it. In 2015 a father and daughter went to New Jersey to get married because it's legal there. Oh and they plan to have children. Liberal policies at work. You are trying to normalize incest. Next is pedophilia.
Click to expand...

Link


----------



## rightwinger

miketx said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever happened to personal responsibility? And then you have a butchering monster like Sandra Fluke who wants to screw everything she can and make the gov pay for killing the babies.
Click to expand...

She wanted her health insurance to pay for birth control

I have to laugh at those who oppose abortion but then balk at having to pay for birth control


----------



## BlueGin

theHawk said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does making rape illegal make it go away entirely?
> 
> Should we just legalize rape then?
Click to expand...

Excellent question. You would think with all the SJW liberal policies and constant Hollywood preaching about “ me too” and other woman’s issues that they would have rid the world of sexual assault by now. But it’s worse. Go figure. And they are raising these predators. What could they be doing wrong?


----------



## BlueGin

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Since liberals insist on de regulating the industry.


----------



## Flash

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand the word...Choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The authoritarian right fears the word ‘choice’ – hence their desire to compel conformity and punish dissent, such as seeking to criminalize the choice a woman might make.
Click to expand...



The authoritative Left fears the words "individual liberty".  They support that filthy collective shit.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses are the same thing as people. That's pretty stupid.
> 
> God wants you to have your baby.  In fact, any argument by anti-choice nuts that involves the word God is pretty stupid.
> 
> here's the reality. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, SHE WILL FIND A WAY TO NOT BE PREGNANT.
> 
> You stupid, misogynistic twat.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure the misogynist is the one calling a woman a Twat. 

Typical hypocritical liberal.


----------



## jknowgood

Faun said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she is going to have sex, why not use protection. Why should an innocent baby be murdered for the woman not being responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> sometimes protection isn’t available when you’re getting it on. Sometimes, protection fails. Still, it’s not murdering a baby. Murder is illegal while abortion is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is proving you wrong on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.
Click to expand...

As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.


----------



## jknowgood

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God when you redefined marriage you all ready opened the door to normalize it. In 2015 a father and daughter went to New Jersey to get married because it's legal there. Oh and they plan to have children. Liberal policies at work. You are trying to normalize incest. Next is pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
Click to expand...

Google it. Then see how redefining marriage opened a pandoras box.


----------



## dblack

Moonglow said:


> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..



These aren't Republicans. They're Trump fascists.


----------



## miketx

rightwinger said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever happened to personal responsibility? And then you have a butchering monster like Sandra Fluke who wants to screw everything she can and make the gov pay for killing the babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She wanted her health insurance to pay for birth control
> 
> I have to laugh at those who oppose abortion but then balk at having to pay for birth control
Click to expand...

I stated nothing of the sort you lying bastard, she wants the government to pay for abortions and BC, that's what I said and that's a fact!


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations.
> 
> The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if charities were getting the job done, we wouldn't need government agencies.
> 
> Hey, here's a crazy idea. Let's get rid of all the "White People Welfare"- social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, FHA and VA loans. Instead, let's let all these white people rely on "Charity" when they hit a rough patch.
Click to expand...

What makes you think vets,seniors,single mothers etc ONLY rely on government aid? They don’t...they also rely on secular charity.  Clothes,food,bills,home repairs, after school programs, help with holiday gift giving etc...


----------



## Flash

Meister said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pro life, but......I feel that rape, incest and health of the mother are in the forefront
> As for incest, I don't think that a 12 or 13 year old should be mentally scarred more than she
> already has by the act itself.
> Some may question my saying that I'm pro life....I am, but for the asterisks.
Click to expand...



The disagreement in this country is mostly over abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.  By the way, that is 96% of the abortions in the US.

If the issue only had to do with legitimate medical concerns and the health of the mother there would not be much disagreement at all. 

As a pro lifer I would gladly compromise on rape and incest to stop killing children for the sake of convenience. There would be only a small fraction of the number of children aborted each year


----------



## miketx

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations.
> 
> The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if charities were getting the job done, we wouldn't need government agencies.
> 
> Hey, here's a crazy idea. Let's get rid of all the "White People Welfare"- social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, FHA and VA loans. Instead, let's let all these white people rely on "Charity" when they hit a rough patch.
Click to expand...

SS is not welfare ya lying pos.


----------



## Faun

jknowgood said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> sometimes protection isn’t available when you’re getting it on. Sometimes, protection fails. Still, it’s not murdering a baby. Murder is illegal while abortion is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Science is proving you wrong on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.
Click to expand...

A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.


----------



## dblack

The state has no business regulating reproduction.


----------



## BlueGin

rightwinger said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever happened to personal responsibility? And then you have a butchering monster like Sandra Fluke who wants to screw everything she can and make the gov pay for killing the babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She wanted her health insurance to pay for birth control
> 
> I have to laugh at those who oppose abortion but then balk at having to pay for birth control
Click to expand...

Free birth control can be obtained at planned parenthood or any free clinic It is also offered through Medicaid.


----------



## BlueGin

anynameyouwish said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me that conservatives who post "trespassers will be shot" on their property don't really believe that "all life is precious".......
> 
> a woman can't have an abortion but you can murder some poor guy who accidentally steps on your property....
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure if you murder someone who “ accidentally “ steps on your property you will go to prison.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


Such an old lie, such a stupid lie.

Virtually ALL non-government adoption and foster agencies are Christian..


----------



## BlueGin

Flash said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course but the fetus contributes to this as well. It's not like a tumor or a parasite, a comparison the sick Left often makes. It IS a unique few months in the development of ALL humans in that the development must take place inside another human. But the science is now settled, as you all love to say. It is a unique human from the beginning and almost from the beginning has a heart, limbs, etc. And as I said, even contributes to its own development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Here's the thing... the world is full with kids who die before their first birthday because they have the bad luck to be born in a third world country.  But that's probably okay by you, since they are a bunch of heathens, anyway...
> 
> The reality is that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to NOT BE PREGNANT.
> 
> No matter how many times you show her pictures of what you salvaged from a medical waste container or scream Jesus at her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The best way for a woman not be pregnant is for her not to spread out her legs.  Either that or insist that the guy fucking her uses a 25 cent condom.  Bets the hell out having to murder her child later, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Not to mention it’s thousands of dollars cheaper.


----------



## miketx

anynameyouwish said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me that conservatives who post "trespassers will be shot" on their property don't really believe that "all life is precious".......
> 
> a woman can't have an abortion but you can murder some poor guy who accidentally steps on your property....
Click to expand...

You floaters never stop lying.


----------



## Uncensored2008

SweetSue92 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
Click to expand...


No evidence Carlin said any of that.


----------



## miketx

dblack said:


> The state has no business regulating reproduction.


They aren't LIAR.


----------



## BlueGin

Penelope said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> No I do not want to control anyone, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar! You are sure as hell "controlling" that child when you kill it, aren't you?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not, I am pro choice.  You are controlling women,  you are an insecure male. I know what is best for women.  You are so insecure, along with those 25 white males who made the law in Alabama.
Click to expand...

You do not speak for all women. Do stop claiming you know what is best for them all.


----------



## August West

SweetSue92 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.
Click to expand...

Does this industry have a CEO and Board of Directors?
Definition of INDUSTRY


----------



## jknowgood

Faun said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is proving you wrong on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.


----------



## BlueGin

August West said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this industry have a CEO and Board of Directors?
> Definition of INDUSTRY
Click to expand...




August West said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this industry have a CEO and Board of Directors?
> Definition of INDUSTRY
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood has both of those things.


----------



## August West

BlueGin said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this industry have a CEO and Board of Directors?
> Definition of INDUSTRY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this industry have a CEO and Board of Directors?
> Definition of INDUSTRY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planned Parenthood has both of those things.
Click to expand...

Is PP a profitable industry?


----------



## SweetSue92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> ‘My body, my choice’ is in fact a perfectly appropriate and compelling argument, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the right to privacy:
> 
> “It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty[.] The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.” (_Planned Parenthood v. Casey _(1992)).
> 
> Consequently, as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, a woman alone has the right to make decisions concerning her bodily integrity absent unwarranted interference from the state – decisions unmitigated by the embryo/fetus she is carrying.
> 
> Moreover, the notion that the embryo/fetus somehow ‘overrides’ a woman’s right to privacy is likewise as a fact of law wrong:
> 
> ‘…an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’ (_Casey, ibid_)
> 
> The ‘argument,’ therefore, that a woman is somehow ‘enslaved’ by a developing organism not yet a person fails, devoid of merit and logic, and in no manner justifying the state’s effort to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
Click to expand...


Casey: "The Court is right because the Court is right"

Uh-uh.


----------



## SweetSue92

Meister said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pro life, but......I feel that rape, incest and health of the mother are in the forefront
> As for incest, I don't think that a 12 or 13 year old should be mentally scarred more than she
> already has by the act itself.
> Some may question my saying that I'm pro life....I am, but for the asterisks.
Click to expand...


I disagree but I can understand that position. I can understand how someone would not want their daughter to go through a pg from a rape she suffered at age 13, even if I don't think the baby should suffer the ultimate penalty.

If we could get more people on board with your stance, well, it would be a great start.


----------



## Flash

dblack said:


> The state has no business regulating reproduction.




Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.

Of course our filthy government has failed miserably at protecting the life of a million American children each year by allowing the infanticide of abortion.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


How many have you (or the asshole Carlin) adopted, donated funds to, etc etc?

The left's standard response...I pay taxes!!!!!

So do we


----------



## jknowgood

SweetSue92 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pro life, but......I feel that rape, incest and health of the mother are in the forefront
> As for incest, I don't think that a 12 or 13 year old should be mentally scarred more than she
> already has by the act itself.
> Some may question my saying that I'm pro life....I am, but for the asterisks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree but I can understand that position. I can understand how someone would not want their daughter to go through a pg from a rape she suffered at age 13, even if I don't think the baby should suffer the ultimate penalty.
> 
> If we could get more people on board with your stance, well, it would be a great start.
Click to expand...

They have the morning after pill they could give rape victim's. That way you wouldn't kill an innocent child later.


----------



## irosie91

August West said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this industry have a CEO and Board of Directors?
> Definition of INDUSTRY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is absolutely an industry and make no mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this industry have a CEO and Board of Directors?
> Definition of INDUSTRY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planned Parenthood has both of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is PP a profitable industry?
Click to expand...


that ^^^^  is expressed with a SPIT-----by communists   (of course---
try to keep in mind that in communist countries, abortion is used
as a convenient substitute for condoms----TRUE FROM MY ACTUAL 
CLINICAL EXPERIENCE<<<<


----------



## irosie91

jknowgood said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pro life, but......I feel that rape, incest and health of the mother are in the forefront
> As for incest, I don't think that a 12 or 13 year old should be mentally scarred more than she
> already has by the act itself.
> Some may question my saying that I'm pro life....I am, but for the asterisks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree but I can understand that position. I can understand how someone would not want their daughter to go through a pg from a rape she suffered at age 13, even if I don't think the baby should suffer the ultimate penalty.
> 
> If we could get more people on board with your stance, well, it would be a great start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have the morning after pill they could give rape victim's. That way you wouldn't kill an innocent child later.
Click to expand...


just kill the innocent raped 12 year old------taking "morning after" 
pills-------a kid might just as well swallow arsenic


----------



## rightwinger

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God when you redefined marriage you all ready opened the door to normalize it. In 2015 a father and daughter went to New Jersey to get married because it's legal there. Oh and they plan to have children. Liberal policies at work. You are trying to normalize incest. Next is pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google it. Then see how redefining marriage opened a pandoras box.
Click to expand...

I live in NJ and was married in NJ

I want to see where a father and daughter can get married


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such an old lie, such a stupid lie.
> 
> Virtually ALL non-government adoption and foster agencies are Christian..
Click to expand...

Seems Carlin did say it

George Carlin – 1996 HBO Special on Pro-Lifers and Abortion | Genius


----------



## strollingbones

the worst to me...its unchristian....there are instructions in the bible on how to abort...hint hint numbers is where you will find it


----------



## jknowgood

irosie91 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pro life, but......I feel that rape, incest and health of the mother are in the forefront
> As for incest, I don't think that a 12 or 13 year old should be mentally scarred more than she
> already has by the act itself.
> Some may question my saying that I'm pro life....I am, but for the asterisks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree but I can understand that position. I can understand how someone would not want their daughter to go through a pg from a rape she suffered at age 13, even if I don't think the baby should suffer the ultimate penalty.
> 
> If we could get more people on board with your stance, well, it would be a great start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have the morning after pill they could give rape victim's. That way you wouldn't kill an innocent child later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just kill the innocent raped 12 year old------taking "morning after"
> pills-------a kid might just as well swallow arsenic
Click to expand...

She could also die having and abortion.


----------



## strollingbones

o and i love cars with conservative stickers  

if you cant feed them dont breed them

next to the pro choice bullshit


----------



## strollingbones

the gop didnt give a shit about abortion or any of this till they figured out they could hood wink the evangelicals with it


----------



## dblack

miketx said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't LIAR.
Click to expand...


Sure. "It's different when we do it".


----------



## rightwinger

strollingbones said:


> the gop didnt give a shit about abortion or any of this till they figured out they could hood wink the evangelicals with it


When Roe v Wade passed in 1973, a conservative court overwhelmingly supported it. Most Republicans, including Nixon supported it.


----------



## dblack

Flash said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.
Click to expand...


This is the excuse used by every overreaching government regulation scheme.

If the Trump fascists manage to push this through, it will turn out just like Prohibition. Maybe even uglier. 

You people need to get over the delusion that we can solve every problem in society by passing a law.


----------



## Papageorgio

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


So there is no day care, headstart, neonatal care, school lunch, food stamps or welfare in this country? Give it a rest. There is all those programs and then some. What we don't have in this country is personal responsibility. So since all the programs exist, then we need to end the murder of babies.


----------



## miketx

dblack said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't LIAR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. "It's different when we do it".
Click to expand...

NO one is going you goddam liar.


----------



## Papageorgio

August West said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
Click to expand...


So there is no clothing industry? I looked at the DOW and could find it. There is no auto industry? Looked up auto industry on the DOW couldn't find it.


----------



## jknowgood

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God when you redefined marriage you all ready opened the door to normalize it. In 2015 a father and daughter went to New Jersey to get married because it's legal there. Oh and they plan to have children. Liberal policies at work. You are trying to normalize incest. Next is pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google it. Then see how redefining marriage opened a pandoras box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in NJ and was married in NJ
> 
> I want to see where a father and daughter can get married
Click to expand...

They went there because they knew a liberal city would marry them. Now quit acting like you're agains it.


----------



## dblack

miketx said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't LIAR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO one is going you goddam liar.
Click to expand...


Going where? To jail? If these laws pass, you can bet people will go to jail. It will be a fucking mess.


----------



## Flash

dblack said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the excuse used by every overreaching government regulation scheme.
> 
> If the Trump fascists manage to push this through, it will turn out just like Prohibition. Maybe even uglier.
> 
> You people need to get over the delusion that we can solve every problem in society by passing a law.
Click to expand...



You are confused Moon Bat.

If we make it harder for women to kill their children for convenience then children's lives will be saved.  I know you are morally bankrupt and don't understand that concept but for us real humans that it is a good thing.

If I remember history correctly it was the fascists that killed people because they didn't want them around just like you filthy ass Libtards demand to do with children that are inconvenient.  Shame on you!


----------



## Flash

Filthy Liberals think it is peachy keen to live in a country where the government lets you kill your children if you think the children are going to be a bother to you.

Immoral assholes!  They would make great Nazis.  To bad they were not alive in the 1930s and 40s.  They could have pleased as punch.


----------



## rightwinger

dblack said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the excuse used by every overreaching government regulation scheme.
> 
> If the Trump fascists manage to push this through, it will turn out just like Prohibition. Maybe even uglier.
> 
> You people need to get over the delusion that we can solve every problem in society by passing a law.
Click to expand...

Republicans will answer in the 2020 elections

Not in Alabama, Missouri  and maybe Georgia but in moderate America and Blue States

Every Republican at every level of government will have to answer for his parties views of abortion. They will be asked about 12 year olds and rape victims and incest victims

No amount of......My personal views and I would never vote will satisfy the fact that they represent a party that denies abortions to those innocent victims


----------



## SassyIrishLass

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the excuse used by every overreaching government regulation scheme.
> 
> If the Trump fascists manage to push this through, it will turn out just like Prohibition. Maybe even uglier.
> 
> You people need to get over the delusion that we can solve every problem in society by passing a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans will answer in the 2020 elections
> 
> Not in Alabama, Missouri  and maybe Georgia but in moderate America and Blue States
> 
> Every Republican at every level of government will have to answer for his parties views of abortion. They will be asked about 12 year olds and rape victims and incest victims
> 
> No amount of......My personal views and I would never vote will satisfy the fact that they represent a party that denies abortions to those innocent victims
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah...You're never right.


----------



## Hellbilly

Flash said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.
> 
> If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.
Click to expand...


Actually it’s conservatives that should think about that, and not oppose abortion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hellbilly

SweetSue92 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also safeguard our rights and protected liberties, we keep government out of the private lives of Americans, and we ensure that government authority is limited.
> 
> 50 years ago conservatives believed in such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ultimate, number one right is LIFE
Click to expand...


According to who?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Flash

Billyboom said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.
> 
> If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it’s conservatives that should think about that, and not oppose abortion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



I am sorry Moon Bat but you are confused.

Conservatives believe in personal liberty and that means the filthy ass state not giving your shithead mother the right to kill you just because she doesn't want to be bothered with changing your diaper, which is exactly what abortion on demand for the sake of convenience is all about.  Well that and running away from personal responsibility. 

All you dipshit Libtards believe in collectivism.  If you are cramping your mother's Moon Bat style to march around in a pink pussy hat and howl at the sky then you think the mother has the right to kill you.

You Moon Bats are pathetic excuses for human beings.


----------



## JOSweetHeart

In my opinion, saying something along the lines of "My body, my choice." only makes a person sound more like they are considering suicide, not abortion when abortion is the doing away of another life and not your own.

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## Hellbilly

Flash said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.
> 
> If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it’s conservatives that should think about that, and not oppose abortion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry Moon Bat but you are confused.
> 
> Conservatives believe in personal liberty and that means the filthy ass state not giving your shithead mother the right to kill you just because she doesn't want to be bothered with changing your diaper, which is exactly what abortion on demand for the sake of convenience is all about.  Well that and running away from personal responsibility.
> 
> All you dipshit Libtards believe in collectivism.  If you are cramping your mother's Moon Bat style to march around in a pink pussy hat and howl at the sky then you think the mother has the right to kill you.
> 
> You Moon Bats are pathetic excuses for human beings.
Click to expand...


Ignorant is no way to go through life.
Educate yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger

SassyIrishLass said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the excuse used by every overreaching government regulation scheme.
> 
> If the Trump fascists manage to push this through, it will turn out just like Prohibition. Maybe even uglier.
> 
> You people need to get over the delusion that we can solve every problem in society by passing a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans will answer in the 2020 elections
> 
> Not in Alabama, Missouri  and maybe Georgia but in moderate America and Blue States
> 
> Every Republican at every level of government will have to answer for his parties views of abortion. They will be asked about 12 year olds and rape victims and incest victims
> 
> No amount of......My personal views and I would never vote will satisfy the fact that they represent a party that denies abortions to those innocent victims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah...You're never right.
Click to expand...

Can’t wait to see the commercials with pregnant 12 year olds, rape victims  and victims of incest 
Let’s have Republican candidates answer for it

They used to be able to say they support exemptions.....now it is clear they don’t


----------



## dblack

Flash said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the excuse used by every overreaching government regulation scheme.
> 
> If the Trump fascists manage to push this through, it will turn out just like Prohibition. Maybe even uglier.
> 
> You people need to get over the delusion that we can solve every problem in society by passing a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> If we make it harder for women to kill their children for convenience then children's lives will be saved.  I know you are morally bankrupt and don't understand that concept but for us real humans that it is a good thing.
> 
> If I remember history correctly it was the fascists that killed people because they didn't want them around just like you filthy ass Libtards demand to do with children that are inconvenient.  Shame on you!
Click to expand...


Yes, yes, yes. "It's for the children!". "If it saves one life, it's worth it!"  Again, these are the same excuses that liberals use to justify their ill-considered schemes. But it's an unfortunate fact that we simply can't solve every problem with government. And if we try, _especially when there's not solid consensus on the matter, _it will create far more problems than it solves.

If you want to ban abortion, and not tear the country apart in the process, you'll need to do the work to convince people that it should be outlawed. If you can do that, if you can get public opinion to the point where 70% or 80%, or more, of voters agree with you - then you've got a shot at banning abortion and making it stick.

Democrats need to learn this same lesson (though it doesn't seem to be sinking in just yet). They want to socialize health care. But, as we've seen, you can't foist major changes on society without real consensus. If you try, it only makes things worse.


----------



## SAYIT

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


One need not be Einstein to recognize the truth about abortion yet not a single leftard can. That's a whole lot of stupid and no, we still can't fix it.


----------



## Flash

dblack said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the excuse used by every overreaching government regulation scheme.
> 
> If the Trump fascists manage to push this through, it will turn out just like Prohibition. Maybe even uglier.
> 
> You people need to get over the delusion that we can solve every problem in society by passing a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> If we make it harder for women to kill their children for convenience then children's lives will be saved.  I know you are morally bankrupt and don't understand that concept but for us real humans that it is a good thing.
> 
> If I remember history correctly it was the fascists that killed people because they didn't want them around just like you filthy ass Libtards demand to do with children that are inconvenient.  Shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes. "It's for the children!". "If it saves one life, it's worth it!"  Again, these are the same excuses that liberals use to justify their ill-considered schemes. But it's an unfortunate fact that we simply can't solve every problem with government. And if we try, _especially when there's not solid consensus on the matter, _it will create far more problems than it solves.
> 
> If you want to ban abortion, and not tear the country apart in the process, you'll need to do the work to convince people that it should be outlawed. If you can do that, if you can get public opinion to the point where 70% or 80%, or more, of voters agree with you - then you've got a shot at banning abortion and making it stick.
> 
> Democrats need to learn this same lesson (though it doesn't seem to be sinking in just yet). They want to socialize health care. But, as we've seen, you can't foist major changes on society without real consensus. If you try, it only makes things worse.
Click to expand...



Stupid Liberals are confused many things and they are always on the wrong side of everything.  They are pretty much the scum of this country.  I think we can all agree on that.  That is not subject to much debate.  A lot of people are confused about abortion because they have been brainwashed by the filthy Liberals.  We all know that, don't we?

Supporting the abomination of abortion on demand for the sake of convenience is one of the afflictions that the stupid Liberals have.  It is really disgusting, isn't it?  If you point is that there are a shitload of stupid immoral Liberals in this country then I would have to agree with you.  There were a lot of Germans in the 1930s and 1940s that didn't see anything wrong exterminating those people that they thought were a burden on their society.  That didn't make it right. 

The Liberal press distorts everything and the polls on abortion is no exception.  Only a complete asshole would admit that they support killing a child for the sake of convenience.   Bat shit crazy Moon Bats would admit it but not real Americans.  Of course Moon Bats have a distorted sense of right and wrong, don't they?

I am glad to see the lawmakers in other states and Trump speaking out against this infanticide, aren't you?  Why would anybody kill a child with a heart beat?.


----------



## Flash

Billyboom said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.
> 
> If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it’s conservatives that should think about that, and not oppose abortion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry Moon Bat but you are confused.
> 
> Conservatives believe in personal liberty and that means the filthy ass state not giving your shithead mother the right to kill you just because she doesn't want to be bothered with changing your diaper, which is exactly what abortion on demand for the sake of convenience is all about.  Well that and running away from personal responsibility.
> 
> All you dipshit Libtards believe in collectivism.  If you are cramping your mother's Moon Bat style to march around in a pink pussy hat and howl at the sky then you think the mother has the right to kill you.
> 
> You Moon Bats are pathetic excuses for human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant is no way to go through life.
> Educate yourself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Ignorance is not understanding that a child in the womb is a living human being and it is wrong to kill them for the sake of convenience.

You stupid Moon Bats are ignorant of a great many things.  You don't know a damn thing about Economics.  You never studied History.  You are really confused about Climate Science.  You never read the Bill of Rights.  You have a serious problem understanding ethics and you are completely ignorant of Biology.  

I feel sorry for you.  Going through life dumb, fat and stupid must be a terrible burden for you.


----------



## buttercup

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.

This is fitting for this thread:


----------



## LilOlLady

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Stupid analogy Geroge.  There is welfare for children, medical care, dental care, food stamps, public housing, school lunch, WIC, tax breaks, and a host of other benefits for children.


----------



## LilOlLady

LilOlLady said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid analogy Geroge.  There is welfare for children, medical care, dental care, food stamps, public housing, school lunch, WIC, tax breaks, and a host of other benefits for children.
Click to expand...

Oh, that is not the unborn but the illegal aliens.


----------



## Faun

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God when you redefined marriage you all ready opened the door to normalize it. In 2015 a father and daughter went to New Jersey to get married because it's legal there. Oh and they plan to have children. Liberal policies at work. You are trying to normalize incest. Next is pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google it. Then see how redefining marriage opened a pandoras box.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage opened up no such box nor did it have anything to do with that couple.


----------



## Faun

jknowgood said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.
Click to expand...

Nope, still not murder. Murder is illegal while abortion is not. That would be like calling killing someone in self defense, murder. Do you think Darren Wilson is a murderer for killing Michael Brown?


----------



## SweetSue92

strollingbones said:


> the worst to me...its unchristian....there are instructions in the bible on how to abort...hint hint numbers is where you will find it



Wrong. Bad translation. Not abortion.


----------



## Faun

buttercup said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
Click to expand...

_*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_

Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.


----------



## Hiryuu

Moonglow said:


> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..



At what point would you be willing to say the arms, legs, heart and whatnot of the fetus, stop being the woman's body?


----------



## buttercup

Faun said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
Click to expand...


*sigh*   You're further proving the point.

If you don't like rape, then don't rape but don't impose your opinion on rapists. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, but let slaveowners have their choice. If you don't like murder then don't murder but let murderers have their choice.


----------



## SweetSue92

Faun said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
Click to expand...


Let's say that to cannibals like Jeffrey Dahmer shall we? He might say, "You don't get to impose your opinion on others."

Just another dumb argument from pro-choicers


----------



## Faun

buttercup said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*   You're further proving the point.
> 
> If you don't like rape, then don't rape but don't impose your opinion on rapists. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, but let slaveowners have their choice. If you don't like murder then don't murder but let murderers have their choice.
Click to expand...

Your analogy fails you.

Rape is illegal. So is slavery. Abortion is not.


----------



## Faun

SweetSue92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say that to cannibals like Jeffrey Dahmer shall we? He might say, "You don't get to impose your opinion on others."
> 
> Just another dumb argument from pro-choicers
Click to expand...

^^^ Another failed analogy.


----------



## SweetSue92

Faun said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*   You're further proving the point.
> 
> If you don't like rape, then don't rape but don't impose your opinion on rapists. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, but let slaveowners have their choice. If you don't like murder then don't murder but let murderers have their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogy fails you.
> 
> Rape is illegal. So is slavery. Abortion is not.
Click to expand...


So what. *Slavery at was one time legal*. We are arguing about what things SHOULD be legal, in case this has not occurred to you.


----------



## SweetSue92

Faun said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say that to cannibals like Jeffrey Dahmer shall we? He might say, "You don't get to impose your opinion on others."
> 
> Just another dumb argument from pro-choicers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Another failed analogy.
Click to expand...


You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.


----------



## buttercup

Faun said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*   You're further proving the point.
> 
> If you don't like rape, then don't rape but don't impose your opinion on rapists. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, but let slaveowners have their choice. If you don't like murder then don't murder but let murderers have their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogy fails you.
> 
> Rape is illegal. So is slavery. Abortion is not.
Click to expand...


Oh, please.  You're smarter than that.  Slavery was once legal, did that make it right?  Don't hide behind laws, unless you think laws = objective absolute truths that are always right and can never be questioned.


----------



## Faun

SweetSue92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*   You're further proving the point.
> 
> If you don't like rape, then don't rape but don't impose your opinion on rapists. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, but let slaveowners have their choice. If you don't like murder then don't murder but let murderers have their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogy fails you.
> 
> Rape is illegal. So is slavery. Abortion is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what. *Slavery at was one time legal*. We are arguing about what things SHOULD be legal, in case this has not occurred to you.
Click to expand...

And it's not now. Abortion is.


----------



## Faun

SweetSue92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say that to cannibals like Jeffrey Dahmer shall we? He might say, "You don't get to impose your opinion on others."
> 
> Just another dumb argument from pro-choicers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Another failed analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
Click to expand...

My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.


----------



## rightwinger

SAYIT said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> One need not be Einstein to recognize the truth about abortion yet not a single leftard can. That's a whole lot of stupid and no, we still can't fix it.
Click to expand...

The truth is abortion is here and will always be here
You will never criminalize it and it will always be an option

Your best resort is to make it an option that is rarely needed


----------



## SweetSue92

Faun said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say that to cannibals like Jeffrey Dahmer shall we? He might say, "You don't get to impose your opinion on others."
> 
> Just another dumb argument from pro-choicers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Another failed analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.
Click to expand...


When Leftists lose arguments this is what they say. The fact that they can't make good arguments and  you won is somehow a "reflection of who you are".

What I see reflecting is that you lost another one, Faun. You made a crappy argument somewhere along the lines of "It's lawful; therefore it's moral and just and should stand"

Some of us brought up slavery. Now you're whining.


----------



## dblack

Flash said:


> I am glad to see the lawmakers in other states and Trump speaking out against this infanticide, aren't you?


Not if they're proposing legislation to regulate it, no. I think it would be a mistake.


----------



## LilOlLady

What should the unborn child be punished for the irresponsible actions of its mother? The unborn do not have a voice so someone with a sense of morals needs to speak for them.


----------



## LilOlLady

*7 Reasons Why American Culture Is The Most Degenerate In The World*
Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride
*https://www.rooshv.com/7-reasons-why-american-culture-is-the-most-degenerate-in-the-world*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Faun said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say that to cannibals like Jeffrey Dahmer shall we? He might say, "You don't get to impose your opinion on others."
> 
> Just another dumb argument from pro-choicers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Another failed analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.
Click to expand...

As a fact of law abortion isn’t ‘murder’ – to argue that it is 'murder' is as ignorant as it is wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> What should the unborn child be punished for the irresponsible actions of its mother? The unborn do not have a voice so someone with a sense of morals needs to speak for them.


Clearly those hostile to privacy rights have no ‘sense of morals.’

The state forcing women to give birth against their will through force of law is completely immoral.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SweetSue92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*   You're further proving the point.
> 
> If you don't like rape, then don't rape but don't impose your opinion on rapists. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, but let slaveowners have their choice. If you don't like murder then don't murder but let murderers have their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogy fails you.
> 
> Rape is illegal. So is slavery. Abortion is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what. *Slavery at was one time legal*. We are arguing about what things SHOULD be legal, in case this has not occurred to you.
Click to expand...

False comparison fallacy.

Those held in slavery were persons entitled to Constitutional protections, as acknowledged by the 14th Amendment.  

An embryo/fetus is not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections; see the case law cited earlier in this thread.


----------



## LilOlLady

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> What should the unborn child be punished for the irresponsible actions of its mother? The unborn do not have a voice so someone with a sense of morals needs to speak for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly those hostile to privacy rights have no ‘sense of morals.’
> 
> The state forcing women to give birth against their will through force of law is completely immoral.
Click to expand...

Immoral? Immoral is murdering your own defensive child. Those women had a choice whether to get pregnant or not. Their being irresponsible actions they had to pay for. "Do the deed pay the price"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the excuse used by every overreaching government regulation scheme.
> 
> If the Trump fascists manage to push this through, it will turn out just like Prohibition. Maybe even uglier.
> 
> You people need to get over the delusion that we can solve every problem in society by passing a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> If we make it harder for women to kill their children for convenience then children's lives will be saved.  I know you are morally bankrupt and don't understand that concept but for us real humans that it is a good thing.
> 
> If I remember history correctly it was the fascists that killed people because they didn't want them around just like you filthy ass Libtards demand to do with children that are inconvenient.  Shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes. "It's for the children!". "If it saves one life, it's worth it!"  Again, these are the same excuses that liberals use to justify their ill-considered schemes. But it's an unfortunate fact that we simply can't solve every problem with government. And if we try, _especially when there's not solid consensus on the matter, _it will create far more problems than it solves.
> 
> If you want to ban abortion, and not tear the country apart in the process, you'll need to do the work to convince people that it should be outlawed. If you can do that, if you can get public opinion to the point where 70% or 80%, or more, of voters agree with you - then you've got a shot at banning abortion and making it stick.
> 
> Democrats need to learn this same lesson (though it doesn't seem to be sinking in just yet). They want to socialize health care. But, as we've seen, you can't foist major changes on society without real consensus. If you try, it only makes things worse.
Click to expand...

This is a lie.

Democrats don’t want to ‘socialize’ medicine.

And there’s clear consensus that Americans should have access to affordable healthcare.

This also fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA are perfectly Constitutional – seeking to violate the privacy rights of women by ‘banning’ abortion is not.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has no business regulating reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is to protect human life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the excuse used by every overreaching government regulation scheme.
> 
> If the Trump fascists manage to push this through, it will turn out just like Prohibition. Maybe even uglier.
> 
> You people need to get over the delusion that we can solve every problem in society by passing a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> If we make it harder for women to kill their children for convenience then children's lives will be saved.  I know you are morally bankrupt and don't understand that concept but for us real humans that it is a good thing.
> 
> If I remember history correctly it was the fascists that killed people because they didn't want them around just like you filthy ass Libtards demand to do with children that are inconvenient.  Shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes. "It's for the children!". "If it saves one life, it's worth it!"  Again, these are the same excuses that liberals use to justify their ill-considered schemes. But it's an unfortunate fact that we simply can't solve every problem with government. And if we try, _especially when there's not solid consensus on the matter, _it will create far more problems than it solves.
> 
> If you want to ban abortion, and not tear the country apart in the process, you'll need to do the work to convince people that it should be outlawed. If you can do that, if you can get public opinion to the point where 70% or 80%, or more, of voters agree with you - then you've got a shot at banning abortion and making it stick.
> 
> Democrats need to learn this same lesson (though it doesn't seem to be sinking in just yet). They want to socialize health care. But, as we've seen, you can't foist major changes on society without real consensus. If you try, it only makes things worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> 
> Democrats don’t want to ‘socialize’ medicine.
> 
> And there’s clear consensus that Americans should have access to affordable healthcare.
> 
> This also fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA are perfectly Constitutional – seeking to violate the privacy rights of women by ‘banning’ abortion is not.
Click to expand...


"It's different when we do it"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid analogy Geroge.  There is welfare for children, medical care, dental care, food stamps, public housing, school lunch, WIC, tax breaks, and a host of other benefits for children.
Click to expand...

All of which most on the right seek to destroy – while also seeking to compel women to give birth against their will.


----------



## LilOlLady

Democrats call it immoral for Trump temporarily separating children from their mothers but do not have a problem with mothers having their unborn children murdered. Dem. Al Green complains about Trump.


----------



## rightwinger

LilOlLady said:


> Democrats call it immoral for Trump temporarily separating children from their mothers but do not have a problem with mothers having their unborn children murdered. Dem. Al Green complains about Trump.


One child is living, the other is not


----------



## Hellbilly

Flash said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.
> 
> If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it’s conservatives that should think about that, and not oppose abortion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry Moon Bat but you are confused.
> 
> Conservatives believe in personal liberty and that means the filthy ass state not giving your shithead mother the right to kill you just because she doesn't want to be bothered with changing your diaper, which is exactly what abortion on demand for the sake of convenience is all about.  Well that and running away from personal responsibility.
> 
> All you dipshit Libtards believe in collectivism.  If you are cramping your mother's Moon Bat style to march around in a pink pussy hat and howl at the sky then you think the mother has the right to kill you.
> 
> You Moon Bats are pathetic excuses for human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant is no way to go through life.
> Educate yourself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is not understanding that a child in the womb is a living human being and it is wrong to kill them for the sake of convenience.
> 
> You stupid Moon Bats are ignorant of a great many things.  You don't know a damn thing about Economics.  You never studied History.  You are really confused about Climate Science.  You never read the Bill of Rights.  You have a serious problem understanding ethics and you are completely ignorant of Biology.
> 
> I feel sorry for you.  Going through life dumb, fat and stupid must be a terrible burden for you.
Click to expand...


Don’t feel sorry for me.
I’m better than you will ever be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wyatt earp

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...






*1 John 3:15 ESV*
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

*Revelation 21:8 ESV*
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”











.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

jknowgood said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

You’re confusing criminal law with civil law.

Murder concerns criminal law and criminal due process; the right to privacy concerns civil law and substantive due process, where the state lacks the authority to violate a woman’s right to privacy.

In criminal law one who commits murder is in the wrong; in civil law government is in the wrong when it attempts to force women to give birth against their will by ‘banning’ abortion.

Moreover, abortion is not ‘murder’ because an embryo/fetus is not a person entitled to Constitutional protections, such as the right to due process.

Last, the protected liberties of the pregnant woman are paramount – she is a person entitled to Constitutional protections, the developing organism inside her is not.


----------



## Unkotare

Billyboom said:


> ...
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Another example of a stupid, empty talking point!


----------



## Unkotare

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> .....
> 
> Moreover, abortion is not ‘murder’ because an embryo/fetus is not a person entitled to Constitutional protections, such as the right to due process.
> 
> Last, the protected liberties of the pregnant woman are paramount – she is a person entitled to Constitutional protections, the developing organism inside her is not.




Here's a good example of how pro-abortion liberals have to deny the most obvious underlying fact of the issue in order to try to even convince themselves that there is anything defensible about their blood-thirsty position.


----------



## Unkotare

anynameyouwish said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me that conservatives who post "trespassers will be shot" on their property don't really believe that "all life is precious".......
> 
> a woman can't have an abortion but you can murder some poor guy who accidentally steps on your property....
Click to expand...



Your straw man is embarrassed at being used so poorly.


----------



## MaryL

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

George Carlin  was a rich white male millionaire. He made his fortune from  mocking middleclass bourgeoisie  whites, for Christ sake.  That paradigm is dead now. Now we have a  huge underclass  living in fucking tents by the side of the road as  of you weepy eyed liberal ignoramuses drive by, unaffected. But the plight of the poor poor Mexican illegal aliens, oh, compassion city! What the fuck? Abortion is infanticide by  other name. And quoting a  dead  wealthy  white male comedian about abortion isn't exactly a great example to legitimize anything, anyway. Is it?


----------



## Faun

SweetSue92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say that to cannibals like Jeffrey Dahmer shall we? He might say, "You don't get to impose your opinion on others."
> 
> Just another dumb argument from pro-choicers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Another failed analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Leftists lose arguments this is what they say. The fact that they can't make good arguments and  you won is somehow a "reflection of who you are".
> 
> What I see reflecting is that you lost another one, Faun. You made a crappy argument somewhere along the lines of "It's lawful; therefore it's moral and just and should stand"
> 
> Some of us brought up slavery. Now you're whining.
Click to expand...

Shit, I tell you my argument is that it's not murder because murder is illegal while abortion is legal and your deformed brain somehow translates that into: _"It's lawful; therefore it's moral and just and should stand"_


----------



## LilOlLady

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*   You're further proving the point.
> 
> If you don't like rape, then don't rape but don't impose your opinion on rapists. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, but let slaveowners have their choice. If you don't like murder then don't murder but let murderers have their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogy fails you.
> 
> Rape is illegal. So is slavery. Abortion is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what. *Slavery at was one time legal*. We are arguing about what things SHOULD be legal, in case this has not occurred to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False comparison fallacy.
> 
> Those held in slavery were persons entitled to Constitutional protections, as acknowledged by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> An embryo/fetus is not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections; see the case law cited earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

bear513 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Click to expand...


Aesop's Fables?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aesop's Fables?
Click to expand...



Yea your a pagan sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Faun said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say that to cannibals like Jeffrey Dahmer shall we? He might say, "You don't get to impose your opinion on others."
> 
> Just another dumb argument from pro-choicers
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Another failed analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Leftists lose arguments this is what they say. The fact that they can't make good arguments and  you won is somehow a "reflection of who you are".
> 
> What I see reflecting is that you lost another one, Faun. You made a crappy argument somewhere along the lines of "It's lawful; therefore it's moral and just and should stand"
> 
> Some of us brought up slavery. Now you're whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit, I tell you my argument is that it's not murder because murder is illegal while abortion is legal and your deformed brain somehow translates that into: _"It's lawful; therefore it's moral and just and should stand"_
Click to expand...



Being an asshole like you who don't know right from wrong is not illegal, So what was your point again?










*
Proverbs 29:10


Men of bloodshed hate the blameless, But the upright are concerned for his life.*


----------



## LilOlLady

bear513 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.


----------



## rightwinger

LilOlLady said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
Click to expand...


God killed hundreds of thousands of babies


----------



## Faun

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aesop's Fables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea your a pagan sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Nope, not a pagan.... Jewish. And not subject to your fairy tales.


----------



## anynameyouwish

LilOlLady said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
Click to expand...


so you are declaring that you are NOT an American?

Pence said pretty much the same thing......he isn't an American, either.....


----------



## anynameyouwish

bear513 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



I see....you are an Islamic terrorist!


thanks for telling us.....


----------



## Wyatt earp

anynameyouwish said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see....you are an Islamic terrorist!
> 
> 
> thanks for telling us.....
Click to expand...




Another pagan speaks who try"s like hell to justify Baby killing













.


----------



## Wyatt earp

anynameyouwish said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are declaring that you are NOT an American?
> 
> Pence said pretty much the same thing......he isn't an American, either.....
Click to expand...






You mad Bro?


----------



## Dana7360

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?





If it's not her body then remove it from her body and allow it to live in it's own body.

What's that you say? It doesn't have a body?


----------



## candycorn

If you don’t celebrate the day you were conceived as your birthday…you have no argument in the abortion debate.


----------



## candycorn

And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?


----------



## Wyatt earp

rightwinger said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
Click to expand...



and the reason why was?????





come on tell us the entire story......


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?





^

Another Anti science liberal



.


----------



## buttercup

candycorn said:


> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?



Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.

Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.


----------



## buttercup

candycorn said:


> If you don’t celebrate the day you were conceived as your birthday…you have no argument in the abortion debate.



You're continuing to prove the OP correct.   Regardless of when birthdays are celebrated, we come into existence months before the head comes out of the birth canal.


----------



## Third Party

buttercup said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.
> 
> Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.
Click to expand...

Samantha Bee gave an entertaining and informative talk about this on her last show.


----------



## LilOlLady

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
Click to expand...

That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.


----------



## MaryL

What is the difference between infanticide and abortion?


----------



## rightwinger

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
Click to expand...

There is a legitimate reason for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent children, puppies and Kittens?


----------



## rightwinger

LilOlLady said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
Click to expand...

Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
He killed babies because he was having a bad day

How about the first born of Egypt?


----------



## LilOlLady

rightwinger said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
Click to expand...

If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.


----------



## LilOlLady

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a legitimate reason for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent children, puppies and Kittens?
Click to expand...

Yes, there was.


----------



## jknowgood

Faun said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God when you redefined marriage you all ready opened the door to normalize it. In 2015 a father and daughter went to New Jersey to get married because it's legal there. Oh and they plan to have children. Liberal policies at work. You are trying to normalize incest. Next is pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google it. Then see how redefining marriage opened a pandoras box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay marriage opened up no such box nor did it have anything to do with that couple.
Click to expand...

You're crazy our society is insane. You can be anything you want, and have rights.


----------



## jknowgood

Faun said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, still not murder. Murder is illegal while abortion is not. That would be like calling killing someone in self defense, murder. Do you think Darren Wilson is a murderer for killing Michael Brown?
Click to expand...

How about a baby on the table, surviving an abortion. You good with killing the baby?


----------



## jknowgood

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You’re confusing criminal law with civil law.
> 
> Murder concerns criminal law and criminal due process; the right to privacy concerns civil law and substantive due process, where the state lacks the authority to violate a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> In criminal law one who commits murder is in the wrong; in civil law government is in the wrong when it attempts to force women to give birth against their will by ‘banning’ abortion.
> 
> Moreover, abortion is not ‘murder’ because an embryo/fetus is not a person entitled to Constitutional protections, such as the right to due process.
> 
> Last, the protected liberties of the pregnant woman are paramount – she is a person entitled to Constitutional protections, the developing organism inside her is not.
Click to expand...

Is abortion not stopping a life?


----------



## Wyatt earp

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a legitimate reason for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent children, puppies and Kittens?
Click to expand...


Read the entire Bible and not pull it out of context?


I think this was you..



Genesis 38


But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.


----------



## buttercup

jknowgood said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, still not murder. Murder is illegal while abortion is not. That would be like calling killing someone in self defense, murder. Do you think Darren Wilson is a murderer for killing Michael Brown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about a baby on the table, surviving an abortion. You good with killing the baby?
Click to expand...


Something tells me that if they had the little preborn in their hands, right in front of their eyes, they would not be able to crush and kill him with their own two hands.  If they say they _could _do it, they're either lying or they're a heartless, sick individual.

(and I know exactly what their response is going to be...so we'll see if they prove me right.)


----------



## LilOlLady

ISSUES
*Abortion facility workers explain how they disposed of aborted babies*

Abortion facility workers explain how they disposed of aborted babies


----------



## LilOlLady

buttercup said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, still not murder. Murder is illegal while abortion is not. That would be like calling killing someone in self defense, murder. Do you think Darren Wilson is a murderer for killing Michael Brown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about a baby on the table, surviving an abortion. You good with killing the baby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something tells me that if they had the little preborn in their hands, right in front of their eyes, they would not be able to crush and kill him with their own two hands.  If they say they _could _do it, they're either lying or they're a heartless, sick individual.
> 
> (and I know exactly what their response is going to be...so we'll see if they prove me right.)
Click to expand...

I have had them in the palm of my hand and no one can convince that it was not a living being.


----------



## keepitreal

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

First of all, political affiliation 
has nothing to do with being anti abortion 

Plenty of people are anti abortion, not just Conservatives 

Secondly, why does taking an anti abortion stance 
make you responsible for someone else's responsibility 

I'm pro responsibility and pro consequences 

Getting pregnant and needing assistance 
financially providing for the child is one thing....

Continuing to have children 
you can't provide for is another thing

Children are a responsibility, not an entitlement 

How is it, others are trashed 
for not caring about someone else's kids, 
but never those who should have cared to begin with...

If you have to work 2 jobs and go without 
to take care of your responsibilities, then so be it

No one is entitled to have what they want
by begging for what they need

Your not entitled to food stamps
just so you can continue getting your nails done

Your not entitled to food stamps 
just so you don't have to fix chicken 100 ways
and can get the goodies you couldn't otherwise 

Your not entitled to free day care
so you can keep your IPHONE 

Your kids are not entitled to school lunches
when you already get food stamps and can fix their lunches 

Your not entitled to live off welfare 
so you don't have to work 2 jobs and sacrifice 

Helping those who are struggling, but being responsible 
and preventing struggles by rewarding irresponsibility....
Are worlds apart 

Our choices have consequences


----------



## sparky

buttercup said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the get advanced, they are showing proof that a fetus is a living being.
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, still not murder. Murder is illegal while abortion is not. That would be like calling killing someone in self defense, murder. Do you think Darren Wilson is a murderer for killing Michael Brown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about a baby on the table, surviving an abortion. You good with killing the baby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something tells me that if they had the little preborn in their hands, right in front of their eyes, they would not be able to crush and kill him with their own two hands.  If they say they _could _do it, they're either lying or they're a heartless, sick individual.
> 
> (and I know exactly what their response is going to be...so we'll see if they prove me right.)
Click to expand...


As an ex-emt , methinks you've got _my_ number Buttercup

But turnabout is _fair _game here, so here goes....

What is '_life_' ?  I'm of the assumption it's more than a petri dish of biomatter

 Consider all those stone cold dead patients delivered w/mechanical pulse to the ER

Consider those one can see in the ICU,  zero _brain_ activity , bodies mechanically kept alive......family has to flip a coin.....


What am i _leading_ up to?  the heartbeat thing just don't jive....

well, just when does the '_life_' or '_soul_' enter us?

Can _two _souls exist in _one_ body?

~S~


----------



## beagle9

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm even for white females to have a choice.  See when I talk about females, I mean all females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it is mostly the Blacks that abort their children.  Way out of proportion to the demographics.
> 
> If you support abortion then you support the deaths of hundreds of thousands of potential Democrat voters each year.  You stupid Moon Bats should think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support the right of a mother to decide whether she should have more children.
> Blacks have more abortions because they are more likely to be economically disadvantaged
> 
> What do anti abortion conservatives call poor black women who keep their children?
> Welfare Queens
Click to expand...

Matters not what anyone calls anybody, it still doesn't warrant a woman using abortion as a form of contraception after being irresponsible. Welfare queens whether white or black entails way more than just being a pro-choice individual in life, They are usually not responsible in many, many ways, and getting pregnant is just one of those many ways they are irresponsible in life about, and it usually ends with the father gone quickly afterwards.   The sad thing is, is then the government turns to others to pay the bills for the irresponsible bullcrap, and that has to end.


----------



## sparky

beagle9 said:


> The sad thing is, is then the government turns to others to pay the bills for the irresponsible bullcrap, and that has to end.



perhaps that's the bottom line  beagle

~S~


----------



## Wyatt earp

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1 John 3:15 ESV*
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
> 
> *Revelation 21:8 ESV*
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aesop's Fables?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea your a pagan sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Nope, not a pagan.... Jewish. And not subject to your fairy tales.
Click to expand...


Still hope for you...................


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> ‘My body, my choice’ is in fact a perfectly appropriate and compelling argument, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the right to privacy:
> 
> “It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty[.] The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.” (_Planned Parenthood v. Casey _(1992)).
> 
> Consequently, as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, a woman alone has the right to make decisions concerning her bodily integrity absent unwarranted interference from the state – decisions unmitigated by the embryo/fetus she is carrying.
> 
> Moreover, the notion that the embryo/fetus somehow ‘overrides’ a woman’s right to privacy is likewise as a fact of law wrong:
> 
> ‘…an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’ (_Casey, ibid_)
> 
> The ‘argument,’ therefore, that a woman is somehow ‘enslaved’ by a developing organism not yet a person fails, devoid of merit and logic, and in no manner justifying the state’s effort to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
Click to expand...

Ahhh come on, you know the whole abortion thing is nothing but a way to socially engineer the population in this nation, and that is why the left fights so hard to keep it going, and to defend it no matter how bad it is. It goes hand in hand with all the other social engineering the left has been engaging in for the last 50 + years in this country.


----------



## Death Angel

sparky said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, still not murder. Murder is illegal while abortion is not. That would be like calling killing someone in self defense, murder. Do you think Darren Wilson is a murderer for killing Michael Brown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about a baby on the table, surviving an abortion. You good with killing the baby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something tells me that if they had the little preborn in their hands, right in front of their eyes, they would not be able to crush and kill him with their own two hands.  If they say they _could _do it, they're either lying or they're a heartless, sick individual.
> 
> (and I know exactly what their response is going to be...so we'll see if they prove me right.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As an ex-emt , methinks you've got _my_ number Buttercup
> 
> But turnabout is _fair _game here, so here goes....
> 
> What is '_life_' ?  I'm of the assumption it's more than a petri dish of biomatter
> 
> Consider all those stone cold dead patients delivered w/mechanical pulse to the ER
> 
> Consider those one can see in the ICU,  zero _brain_ activity , bodies mechanically kept alive......family has to flip a coin.....
> 
> 
> What am i _leading_ up to?  the heartbeat thing just don't jive....
> 
> well, just when does the '_life_' or '_soul_' enter us?
> 
> Can _two _souls exist in _one_ body?
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Amazing what mental gymnastics we go thru to justify killing a developing baby


----------



## beagle9

sparky said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is, is then the government turns to others to pay the bills for the irresponsible bullcrap, and that has to end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps that's the bottom line  beagle
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

No, the responsibility part is important also, because with responsibility comes a healthy happy society, but without it we have some terrible stuff going on.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I am pro choice, I do not advocate either way.  You are not pro life, just pro fetus.  You are just another insecure male.  No you are not godly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are "pro choice" then you are a racist because that is the mechanism where hundreds of thousands of Black children are killed each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand the word...Choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The authoritarian right fears the word ‘choice’ – hence their desire to compel conformity and punish dissent, such as seeking to criminalize the choice a woman might make.
Click to expand...

If her choice is murder, then no civilized society should stand for it..  Period.


----------



## Leo123

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


Carlin was a COMEDIAN Sparky.   That's why his opinion is a joke.  If you can't recognize that you are a dumbass.


----------



## beagle9

Faun said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she is going to have sex, why not use protection. Why should an innocent baby be murdered for the woman not being responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> sometimes protection isn’t available when you’re getting it on. Sometimes, protection fails. Still, it’s not murdering a baby. Murder is illegal while abortion is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is proving you wrong on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4 graphic ultrasounds. They are also finding out the baby in the womb knows what's going on around them. Pretty soon pro choice people will be considered worse than Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultrasounds don’t render abortions illegal.
Click to expand...

They should stand as evidence against abortion.


----------



## Leo123

It's no longer a woman's body when she accepted the male sperm into her vagina and that sperm fertilized her eggs.   The OP is 100% correct.


----------



## Third Party

MaryL said:


> What is the difference between infanticide and abortion?


The spelling?


----------



## Third Party

LilOlLady said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
Click to expand...

What if the Bible only has PART of the truth? We could argue about which PART is true.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Third Party said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if the Bible only has PART of the truth? We could argue about which PART is true.
Click to expand...


you are talking to a bible thumper...................




2 Timothy 3:15–17 (NIV) 
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,


----------



## rightwinger

LilOlLady said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not make allowance for unwanted pregnancies with abortions. No *man can serve* two masters: for *either* he. *will* hate the one, and love the other; or else. he *will* hold to the one, and despise the other,  You either chose to serve GOD or you chose to serve man-made governments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
Click to expand...

Dead babies are dead babies

You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion


----------



## rightwinger

I didn’t see Jesus killing innocent babies, puppies and kittens


----------



## MaryL

The spelling issue .Der  spelling an der gramer   Nazis.  Forever damned be ye. But forgiven are ye ta be libral'.. Giving sanitary to illegal aliens outside of the vox poli, that is OK. Nobody wanted illegal immigration but the exploiters


----------



## beagle9

rightwinger said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God killed hundreds of thousands of babies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
Click to expand...

Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.


----------



## Dana7360

Faun said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who, you ????? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Americans. A vast majority want it available under some conditions. Plus, some states have passed laws permitted it; meaning abortion would still be legal and available to women in those states even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned.
Click to expand...



You're very correct. Something like 70% of the people of our nation believe that it should remain legal.

You're also correct about some states. 

Mine is one. In the early 90s we passed a ballot initiative that made choice safe and legal in my state no matter what any court or judge or congress says or does.

Women are safe in my state and there's absolutely nothing any right wing extremist can do about it.


----------



## emilynghiem

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



Yes and no SweetSue92

The problem is that legislating and regulating abortion
through Govt is GOING TO AFFECT THE WOMEN carrying
the pregnancy, and not affecting the MEN even if the MEN
coerced the women to get into those situations to begin with.

That's where the protest is coming from.

Where is the outrage and commitment to stop MEN
from abusing women for sex with no responsibility for consequences?

That's the big question that is not being asked
and never been addressed by legislative battles focusing
on pregnancy AFTER THE FACT when it affects WOMEN more than men.

SweetSue92 
To avoid the whole "catch-22" of not being able to protect
the life and rights of unborn persons without interfering with
the equal rights and freedom of women, where this process is taking place
inside their bodies, we'd have to agree on policies to PREVENT
unwanted pregnancy IN THE FIRST PLACE.

We prevent unwanted pregnancy, then we prevent abortion
and thus prevent abortion politics from pitting the beliefs
or rights of "one side vs. another" when "equal protection
of the laws" would require ALL SIDES' beliefs and interests to be 
represented and protected EQUALLY.

If we cannot do that, if abortion laws would either compromise
ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, then clearly ALL ABORTION would
have to be PREVENTED WITHOUT RELYING ON PASSING LAWS
unless all sides can AGREE on how such laws are written or enforced.

We'd have to stick to points and policies of agreement
that would effectively prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.

Then ALL rights and beliefs would be protected equally, by preventing
this conflicting situation from ever coming up in the first place!


----------



## beagle9

Dana7360 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who, you ????? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Americans. A vast majority want it available under some conditions. Plus, some states have passed laws permitted it; meaning abortion would still be legal and available to women in those states even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're very correct. Something like 70% of the people of our nation believe that it should remain legal.
> 
> You're also correct about some states.
> 
> Mine is one. In the early 90s we passed a ballot initiative that made choice safe and legal in my state no matter what any court or judge or congress says or does.
> 
> Women are safe in my state and there's absolutely nothing any right wing extremist can do about it.
Click to expand...

Safe, but their babies formed in their wombs are in danger no ????  No one cares about the adults because well they are adults, but a living human being in the womb is defenseless, and of course needs protection by adults who have the God given sense to make laws to protect the defenseless human being. What's amazing is that the threat is actually coming from the mom who cops out on her responsibility in life, and that responsibility is protecting the child that's growing in her body.


----------



## Dana7360

Uncensored2008 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such an old lie, such a stupid lie.
> 
> Virtually ALL non-government adoption and foster agencies are Christian..
Click to expand...




That's not true at all.

I adopted a child and didn't go through any christian organization or the government.


----------



## Leo123

sparky said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus is always a living being and abortion is still legal. It’s about viability. So no, looks like you’re the one who’s wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point that abortion is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, still not murder. Murder is illegal while abortion is not. That would be like calling killing someone in self defense, murder. Do you think Darren Wilson is a murderer for killing Michael Brown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about a baby on the table, surviving an abortion. You good with killing the baby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something tells me that if they had the little preborn in their hands, right in front of their eyes, they would not be able to crush and kill him with their own two hands.  If they say they _could _do it, they're either lying or they're a heartless, sick individual.
> 
> (and I know exactly what their response is going to be...so we'll see if they prove me right.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As an ex-emt , methinks you've got _my_ number Buttercup
> 
> But turnabout is _fair _game here, so here goes....
> 
> What is '_life_' ?  I'm of the assumption it's more than a petri dish of biomatter
> 
> Consider all those stone cold dead patients delivered w/mechanical pulse to the ER
> 
> Consider those one can see in the ICU,  zero _brain_ activity , bodies mechanically kept alive......family has to flip a coin.....
> 
> 
> What am i _leading_ up to?  the heartbeat thing just don't jive....
> 
> well, just when does the '_life_' or '_soul_' enter us?
> 
> Can _two _souls exist in _one_ body?
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


Bad comparison, the heartbeat of an infant in the womb signifies the START of life.  Your analogy tries to equate that with the END of life.   That is, a fully developed human being lacking the brain activity to remain alive.   Apparently a fetus in the womb can be alive with just a heartbeat and minimal brain activity.   The heartbeat certainly is analogous to life in that case.


----------



## Leo123

beagle9 said:


> Matters not what anyone calls anybody, it still doesn't warrant a woman using abortion as a form of contraception after being irresponsible. Welfare queens whether white or black entails way more than just being a pro-choice individual in life, They are usually not responsible in many, many ways, and getting pregnant is just one of those many ways they are irresponsible in life about, and it usually ends with the father gone quickly afterwards.   The sad thing is, is then the government turns to others to pay the bills for the irresponsible bullcrap, and that has to end.



Ya know, one would think that with all the contraceptives available today, outside of criminal rape, women would know better than to have an unwanted pregnancy and then have to abort a developing human being.


----------



## candycorn

buttercup said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.
> 
> Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.
Click to expand...


If you’re pro-life….you should be pro all life.  

Actually, it’s not a few cells, there are millions of cells you guys kill every time you rub one out.  

Why are you not pro-life?


----------



## beagle9

candycorn said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.
> 
> Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re pro-life….you should be pro all life.
> 
> Actually, it’s not a few cells, there are millions of cells you guys kill every time you rub one out.
> 
> Why are you not pro-life?
Click to expand...

Really ??? You went there didn't ya ??? LMBO at the desperate attempts by the Democrats to defend the indefensible just as it had all finally gotten to be. Have you not kept up, it had gotten as far as infanticide with the talking points, yet it is still being defended ??


----------



## SweetSue92

emilynghiem said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no SweetSue92
> 
> The problem is that legislating and regulating abortion
> through Govt is GOING TO AFFECT THE WOMEN carrying
> the pregnancy, and not affecting the MEN even if the MEN
> coerced the women to get into those situations to begin with.
> 
> That's where the protest is coming from.
> 
> Where is the outrage and commitment to stop MEN
> from abusing women for sex with no responsibility for consequences?
> 
> That's the big question that is not being asked
> and never been addressed by legislative battles focusing
> on pregnancy AFTER THE FACT when it affects WOMEN more than men.
> 
> SweetSue92
> To avoid the whole "catch-22" of not being able to protect
> the life and rights of unborn persons without interfering with
> the equal rights and freedom of women, where this process is taking place
> inside their bodies, we'd have to agree on policies to PREVENT
> unwanted pregnancy IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> We prevent unwanted pregnancy, then we prevent abortion
> and thus prevent abortion politics from pitting the beliefs
> or rights of "one side vs. another" when "equal protection
> of the laws" would require ALL SIDES' beliefs and interests to be
> represented and protected EQUALLY.
> 
> If we cannot do that, if abortion laws would either compromise
> ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, then clearly ALL ABORTION would
> have to be PREVENTED WITHOUT RELYING ON PASSING LAWS
> unless all sides can AGREE on how such laws are written or enforced.
> 
> We'd have to stick to points and policies of agreement
> that would effectively prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.
> 
> Then ALL rights and beliefs would be protected equally, by preventing
> this conflicting situation from ever coming up in the first place!
Click to expand...


You are just listing common sense and railing against biology--it's like making a fist and screaming at dark clouds that spill rain. You can do it, but it's unproductive and a waste of time.

Yes, women are the ones who get pregnant. It has always been so and, I suspect, will remain so for a very, very long time. 

Yes, babies desperately need that human incubator. They need it for approximately nine months. Then they don't. 

The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership. They were not raped. They were not "coerced". They were ignorant, or stupid, or lazy. Or a mix of those three. Listen, if we want to be strong independent women, then let's be strong independent women and not sniveling little girls about our biology. Let's not cry about the fact that we can get pregnant, but actually own it, like grown women.


----------



## SweetSue92

candycorn said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.
> 
> Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re pro-life….you should be pro all life.
> 
> Actually, it’s not a few cells, there are millions of cells you guys kill every time you rub one out.
> 
> Why are you not pro-life?
Click to expand...


This talking point is even more stupid that "My Body, My Choice". This one is so stupid it's confined to the Underworld of Talking Points--pretty much just forums and such. "Sperm is just like a developing baby"

And these folks say WE are "anti-science"

My fourth graders are laughing  at you


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
Click to expand...


Do you think that by making guns illegal it will somehow go away?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses are the same thing as people. That's pretty stupid.
> 
> God wants you to have your baby.  In fact, any argument by anti-choice nuts that involves the word God is pretty stupid.
> 
> here's the reality. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, SHE WILL FIND A WAY TO NOT BE PREGNANT.
Click to expand...


Abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies. So obviously a lot of women who didn’t want to get pregnant got pregnant anyway. Which in turn means THEY DID NOT FIND A WAY TO NOT BE PREGNANT.

You didn’t think this all the way through, did you?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those hostile to privacy rights couldn’t care less about ending abortion.
> 
> It’s about conservatives using abortion as a wedge issue to further divide the American people, it’s about Republicans using abortion to energize their base, it’s about the right using abortion as a political weapon.
Click to expand...


Kind of like the way the left uses racism, huh?


----------



## sparky

Leo123 said:


> Bad comparison, the heartbeat of an infant in the womb signifies the START of life. Your analogy tries to equate that with the END of life. That is, a fully developed human being lacking the brain activity to remain alive. Apparently a fetus in the womb can be alive with just a heartbeat and minimal brain activity. The heartbeat certainly is analogous to life in that case.


and you base this assumption on what leo?



SweetSue92 said:


> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership.



Until they walk into family court, where all men are no more than a wallet w/legs...

~S~


----------



## rightwinger

beagle9 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
Click to expand...

Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God

He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable

You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living


----------



## rightwinger

SweetSue92 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no SweetSue92
> 
> The problem is that legislating and regulating abortion
> through Govt is GOING TO AFFECT THE WOMEN carrying
> the pregnancy, and not affecting the MEN even if the MEN
> coerced the women to get into those situations to begin with.
> 
> That's where the protest is coming from.
> 
> Where is the outrage and commitment to stop MEN
> from abusing women for sex with no responsibility for consequences?
> 
> That's the big question that is not being asked
> and never been addressed by legislative battles focusing
> on pregnancy AFTER THE FACT when it affects WOMEN more than men.
> 
> SweetSue92
> To avoid the whole "catch-22" of not being able to protect
> the life and rights of unborn persons without interfering with
> the equal rights and freedom of women, where this process is taking place
> inside their bodies, we'd have to agree on policies to PREVENT
> unwanted pregnancy IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> We prevent unwanted pregnancy, then we prevent abortion
> and thus prevent abortion politics from pitting the beliefs
> or rights of "one side vs. another" when "equal protection
> of the laws" would require ALL SIDES' beliefs and interests to be
> represented and protected EQUALLY.
> 
> If we cannot do that, if abortion laws would either compromise
> ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, then clearly ALL ABORTION would
> have to be PREVENTED WITHOUT RELYING ON PASSING LAWS
> unless all sides can AGREE on how such laws are written or enforced.
> 
> We'd have to stick to points and policies of agreement
> that would effectively prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.
> 
> Then ALL rights and beliefs would be protected equally, by preventing
> this conflicting situation from ever coming up in the first place!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just listing common sense and railing against biology--it's like making a fist and screaming at dark clouds that spill rain. You can do it, but it's unproductive and a waste of time.
> 
> Yes, women are the ones who get pregnant. It has always been so and, I suspect, will remain so for a very, very long time.
> 
> Yes, babies desperately need that human incubator. They need it for approximately nine months. Then they don't.
> 
> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership. They were not raped. They were not "coerced". They were ignorant, or stupid, or lazy. Or a mix of those three. Listen, if we want to be strong independent women, then let's be strong independent women and not sniveling little girls about our biology. Let's not cry about the fact that we can get pregnant, but actually own it, like grown women.
Click to expand...

Yup...you got us on that one

Women become pregnant. They are obviously ignorant, stupid or lazy. But the same conservatives who despise abortion also oppose funding for sex education, birth control and social programs to care for babies 

But what happens when a woman becomes pregnant?  Most choose to keep the babies. Some are faced with a difficult decision to terminate. 

Conservatives could make that decision easier.....they don’t


----------



## SweetSue92

rightwinger said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
Click to expand...


Welp well done fellas we've got two of the most stupid Talking Points of the Underworld right here

1. Don't kill sperm it's just like abortion and

2. God also "kills babies"


----------



## SweetSue92

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no SweetSue92
> 
> The problem is that legislating and regulating abortion
> through Govt is GOING TO AFFECT THE WOMEN carrying
> the pregnancy, and not affecting the MEN even if the MEN
> coerced the women to get into those situations to begin with.
> 
> That's where the protest is coming from.
> 
> Where is the outrage and commitment to stop MEN
> from abusing women for sex with no responsibility for consequences?
> 
> That's the big question that is not being asked
> and never been addressed by legislative battles focusing
> on pregnancy AFTER THE FACT when it affects WOMEN more than men.
> 
> SweetSue92
> To avoid the whole "catch-22" of not being able to protect
> the life and rights of unborn persons without interfering with
> the equal rights and freedom of women, where this process is taking place
> inside their bodies, we'd have to agree on policies to PREVENT
> unwanted pregnancy IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> We prevent unwanted pregnancy, then we prevent abortion
> and thus prevent abortion politics from pitting the beliefs
> or rights of "one side vs. another" when "equal protection
> of the laws" would require ALL SIDES' beliefs and interests to be
> represented and protected EQUALLY.
> 
> If we cannot do that, if abortion laws would either compromise
> ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, then clearly ALL ABORTION would
> have to be PREVENTED WITHOUT RELYING ON PASSING LAWS
> unless all sides can AGREE on how such laws are written or enforced.
> 
> We'd have to stick to points and policies of agreement
> that would effectively prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.
> 
> Then ALL rights and beliefs would be protected equally, by preventing
> this conflicting situation from ever coming up in the first place!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just listing common sense and railing against biology--it's like making a fist and screaming at dark clouds that spill rain. You can do it, but it's unproductive and a waste of time.
> 
> Yes, women are the ones who get pregnant. It has always been so and, I suspect, will remain so for a very, very long time.
> 
> Yes, babies desperately need that human incubator. They need it for approximately nine months. Then they don't.
> 
> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership. They were not raped. They were not "coerced". They were ignorant, or stupid, or lazy. Or a mix of those three. Listen, if we want to be strong independent women, then let's be strong independent women and not sniveling little girls about our biology. Let's not cry about the fact that we can get pregnant, but actually own it, like grown women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup...you got us on that one
> 
> Women become pregnant. They are obviously ignorant, stupid or lazy. But the same conservatives who despise abortion also oppose funding for sex education, birth control and social programs to care for babies
> 
> But what happens when a woman becomes pregnant?  Most choose to keep the babies. Some are faced with a difficult decision to terminate.
> 
> Conservatives could make that decision easier.....they don’t
Click to expand...


Yes we know, rightwinger. You think so little of women that without Big Daddy Government, they couldn't possibly know how to use or afford birth control on their own.

That's how stupid YOU think women are. However, luckily for you, there are women who can outthink you. Like me, for example. Every time, with every post.


----------



## rightwinger

SweetSue92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp well done fellas we've got two of the most stupid Talking Points of the Underworld right here
> 
> 1. Don't kill sperm it's just like abortion and
> 
> 2. God also "kills babies"
Click to expand...

Not only did God kill babies, he killed innocent puppies and kittens


----------



## SweetSue92

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> 
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp well done fellas we've got two of the most stupid Talking Points of the Underworld right here
> 
> 1. Don't kill sperm it's just like abortion and
> 
> 2. God also "kills babies"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only did God kill babies, he killed innocent puppies and kittens
Click to expand...


Newsflash:

God will kill us all. 

God, the Author of Life, and He who determines eternal life, has the sole authority to end it whenever He chooses, and in the manner He chooses. Amen and Amen.


----------



## rightwinger

SweetSue92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no SweetSue92
> 
> The problem is that legislating and regulating abortion
> through Govt is GOING TO AFFECT THE WOMEN carrying
> the pregnancy, and not affecting the MEN even if the MEN
> coerced the women to get into those situations to begin with.
> 
> That's where the protest is coming from.
> 
> Where is the outrage and commitment to stop MEN
> from abusing women for sex with no responsibility for consequences?
> 
> That's the big question that is not being asked
> and never been addressed by legislative battles focusing
> on pregnancy AFTER THE FACT when it affects WOMEN more than men.
> 
> SweetSue92
> To avoid the whole "catch-22" of not being able to protect
> the life and rights of unborn persons without interfering with
> the equal rights and freedom of women, where this process is taking place
> inside their bodies, we'd have to agree on policies to PREVENT
> unwanted pregnancy IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> We prevent unwanted pregnancy, then we prevent abortion
> and thus prevent abortion politics from pitting the beliefs
> or rights of "one side vs. another" when "equal protection
> of the laws" would require ALL SIDES' beliefs and interests to be
> represented and protected EQUALLY.
> 
> If we cannot do that, if abortion laws would either compromise
> ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, then clearly ALL ABORTION would
> have to be PREVENTED WITHOUT RELYING ON PASSING LAWS
> unless all sides can AGREE on how such laws are written or enforced.
> 
> We'd have to stick to points and policies of agreement
> that would effectively prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.
> 
> Then ALL rights and beliefs would be protected equally, by preventing
> this conflicting situation from ever coming up in the first place!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just listing common sense and railing against biology--it's like making a fist and screaming at dark clouds that spill rain. You can do it, but it's unproductive and a waste of time.
> 
> Yes, women are the ones who get pregnant. It has always been so and, I suspect, will remain so for a very, very long time.
> 
> Yes, babies desperately need that human incubator. They need it for approximately nine months. Then they don't.
> 
> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership. They were not raped. They were not "coerced". They were ignorant, or stupid, or lazy. Or a mix of those three. Listen, if we want to be strong independent women, then let's be strong independent women and not sniveling little girls about our biology. Let's not cry about the fact that we can get pregnant, but actually own it, like grown women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup...you got us on that one
> 
> Women become pregnant. They are obviously ignorant, stupid or lazy. But the same conservatives who despise abortion also oppose funding for sex education, birth control and social programs to care for babies
> 
> But what happens when a woman becomes pregnant?  Most choose to keep the babies. Some are faced with a difficult decision to terminate.
> 
> Conservatives could make that decision easier.....they don’t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know, rightwinger. You think so little of women that without Big Daddy Government, they couldn't possibly know how to use or afford birth control on their own.
> 
> That's how stupid YOU think women are. However, luckily for you, there are women who can outthink you. Like me, for example. Every time, with every post.
Click to expand...



If I were the one concerned about too many abortions, I would provide free birth control to all. I would convert ice cream trucks and drive through neighborhoods ringing a bell and handing out free birth control

But conservatives fight against sex education in our schools. They sue over a requirement for insurance companies to pay for birth control. They oppose programs that help young pregnant women.  They mock women who need help supporting their family and call them welfare queens

Then they complain about abortions


----------



## SweetSue92

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no SweetSue92
> 
> The problem is that legislating and regulating abortion
> through Govt is GOING TO AFFECT THE WOMEN carrying
> the pregnancy, and not affecting the MEN even if the MEN
> coerced the women to get into those situations to begin with.
> 
> That's where the protest is coming from.
> 
> Where is the outrage and commitment to stop MEN
> from abusing women for sex with no responsibility for consequences?
> 
> That's the big question that is not being asked
> and never been addressed by legislative battles focusing
> on pregnancy AFTER THE FACT when it affects WOMEN more than men.
> 
> SweetSue92
> To avoid the whole "catch-22" of not being able to protect
> the life and rights of unborn persons without interfering with
> the equal rights and freedom of women, where this process is taking place
> inside their bodies, we'd have to agree on policies to PREVENT
> unwanted pregnancy IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> We prevent unwanted pregnancy, then we prevent abortion
> and thus prevent abortion politics from pitting the beliefs
> or rights of "one side vs. another" when "equal protection
> of the laws" would require ALL SIDES' beliefs and interests to be
> represented and protected EQUALLY.
> 
> If we cannot do that, if abortion laws would either compromise
> ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, then clearly ALL ABORTION would
> have to be PREVENTED WITHOUT RELYING ON PASSING LAWS
> unless all sides can AGREE on how such laws are written or enforced.
> 
> We'd have to stick to points and policies of agreement
> that would effectively prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.
> 
> Then ALL rights and beliefs would be protected equally, by preventing
> this conflicting situation from ever coming up in the first place!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just listing common sense and railing against biology--it's like making a fist and screaming at dark clouds that spill rain. You can do it, but it's unproductive and a waste of time.
> 
> Yes, women are the ones who get pregnant. It has always been so and, I suspect, will remain so for a very, very long time.
> 
> Yes, babies desperately need that human incubator. They need it for approximately nine months. Then they don't.
> 
> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership. They were not raped. They were not "coerced". They were ignorant, or stupid, or lazy. Or a mix of those three. Listen, if we want to be strong independent women, then let's be strong independent women and not sniveling little girls about our biology. Let's not cry about the fact that we can get pregnant, but actually own it, like grown women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup...you got us on that one
> 
> Women become pregnant. They are obviously ignorant, stupid or lazy. But the same conservatives who despise abortion also oppose funding for sex education, birth control and social programs to care for babies
> 
> But what happens when a woman becomes pregnant?  Most choose to keep the babies. Some are faced with a difficult decision to terminate.
> 
> Conservatives could make that decision easier.....they don’t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know, rightwinger. You think so little of women that without Big Daddy Government, they couldn't possibly know how to use or afford birth control on their own.
> 
> That's how stupid YOU think women are. However, luckily for you, there are women who can outthink you. Like me, for example. Every time, with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I were the one concerned about too many abortions, I would provide free birth control to all. I would convert ice cream trucks and drive through neighborhoods ringing a bell and handing out free birth control
> 
> But conservatives fight against sex education in our schools. They sue over a requirement for insurance companies to pay for birth control. They oppose programs that help young pregnant women.  They mock women who need help supporting their family and call them welfare queens
> 
> Then they complain about abortions
Click to expand...


You're not all that smart and you lie sometimes. To be frank.

You are confusing "sex education" with perverted sex education. For starters. You are confusing Catholics, who oppose birth control, with all other conservatives, who do not. You are just outright lying about "opposing programs that help young pregnant women". My church now has as its members a man who runs one of the biggest and most active pregnancy-support centers in the area. We regularly donate and work at this center.


----------



## rightwinger

SweetSue92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no SweetSue92
> 
> The problem is that legislating and regulating abortion
> through Govt is GOING TO AFFECT THE WOMEN carrying
> the pregnancy, and not affecting the MEN even if the MEN
> coerced the women to get into those situations to begin with.
> 
> That's where the protest is coming from.
> 
> Where is the outrage and commitment to stop MEN
> from abusing women for sex with no responsibility for consequences?
> 
> That's the big question that is not being asked
> and never been addressed by legislative battles focusing
> on pregnancy AFTER THE FACT when it affects WOMEN more than men.
> 
> SweetSue92
> To avoid the whole "catch-22" of not being able to protect
> the life and rights of unborn persons without interfering with
> the equal rights and freedom of women, where this process is taking place
> inside their bodies, we'd have to agree on policies to PREVENT
> unwanted pregnancy IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> We prevent unwanted pregnancy, then we prevent abortion
> and thus prevent abortion politics from pitting the beliefs
> or rights of "one side vs. another" when "equal protection
> of the laws" would require ALL SIDES' beliefs and interests to be
> represented and protected EQUALLY.
> 
> If we cannot do that, if abortion laws would either compromise
> ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, then clearly ALL ABORTION would
> have to be PREVENTED WITHOUT RELYING ON PASSING LAWS
> unless all sides can AGREE on how such laws are written or enforced.
> 
> We'd have to stick to points and policies of agreement
> that would effectively prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.
> 
> Then ALL rights and beliefs would be protected equally, by preventing
> this conflicting situation from ever coming up in the first place!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just listing common sense and railing against biology--it's like making a fist and screaming at dark clouds that spill rain. You can do it, but it's unproductive and a waste of time.
> 
> Yes, women are the ones who get pregnant. It has always been so and, I suspect, will remain so for a very, very long time.
> 
> Yes, babies desperately need that human incubator. They need it for approximately nine months. Then they don't.
> 
> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership. They were not raped. They were not "coerced". They were ignorant, or stupid, or lazy. Or a mix of those three. Listen, if we want to be strong independent women, then let's be strong independent women and not sniveling little girls about our biology. Let's not cry about the fact that we can get pregnant, but actually own it, like grown women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup...you got us on that one
> 
> Women become pregnant. They are obviously ignorant, stupid or lazy. But the same conservatives who despise abortion also oppose funding for sex education, birth control and social programs to care for babies
> 
> But what happens when a woman becomes pregnant?  Most choose to keep the babies. Some are faced with a difficult decision to terminate.
> 
> Conservatives could make that decision easier.....they don’t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know, rightwinger. You think so little of women that without Big Daddy Government, they couldn't possibly know how to use or afford birth control on their own.
> 
> That's how stupid YOU think women are. However, luckily for you, there are women who can outthink you. Like me, for example. Every time, with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I were the one concerned about too many abortions, I would provide free birth control to all. I would convert ice cream trucks and drive through neighborhoods ringing a bell and handing out free birth control
> 
> But conservatives fight against sex education in our schools. They sue over a requirement for insurance companies to pay for birth control. They oppose programs that help young pregnant women.  They mock women who need help supporting their family and call them welfare queens
> 
> Then they complain about abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not all that smart and you lie sometimes. To be frank.
> 
> You are confusing "sex education" with perverted sex education. For starters. You are confusing Catholics, who oppose birth control, with all other conservatives, who do not. You are just outright lying about "opposing programs that help young pregnant women". My church now has as its members a man who runs one of the biggest and most active pregnancy-support centers in the area. We regularly donate and work at this center.
Click to expand...

Dont try to blame the actions of conservatives on Catholics

Their voting records are readily available
It was conservatives who oppose sex education and many still do
They demand abstinence only education programs
They fought against the Obamacare provision that insurance cover birth control

It seems you are the one who is lying again. You only wish you had a brain as big as mine


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Penelope said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
Click to expand...


What about it? I personally knew a family years ago where a son impregnated his sister. He was arrested for the fact that she was a minor but she went ahead and had the baby and gave it up for adoption.


----------



## SweetSue92

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just listing common sense and railing against biology--it's like making a fist and screaming at dark clouds that spill rain. You can do it, but it's unproductive and a waste of time.
> 
> Yes, women are the ones who get pregnant. It has always been so and, I suspect, will remain so for a very, very long time.
> 
> Yes, babies desperately need that human incubator. They need it for approximately nine months. Then they don't.
> 
> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership. They were not raped. They were not "coerced". They were ignorant, or stupid, or lazy. Or a mix of those three. Listen, if we want to be strong independent women, then let's be strong independent women and not sniveling little girls about our biology. Let's not cry about the fact that we can get pregnant, but actually own it, like grown women.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...you got us on that one
> 
> Women become pregnant. They are obviously ignorant, stupid or lazy. But the same conservatives who despise abortion also oppose funding for sex education, birth control and social programs to care for babies
> 
> But what happens when a woman becomes pregnant?  Most choose to keep the babies. Some are faced with a difficult decision to terminate.
> 
> Conservatives could make that decision easier.....they don’t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know, rightwinger. You think so little of women that without Big Daddy Government, they couldn't possibly know how to use or afford birth control on their own.
> 
> That's how stupid YOU think women are. However, luckily for you, there are women who can outthink you. Like me, for example. Every time, with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I were the one concerned about too many abortions, I would provide free birth control to all. I would convert ice cream trucks and drive through neighborhoods ringing a bell and handing out free birth control
> 
> But conservatives fight against sex education in our schools. They sue over a requirement for insurance companies to pay for birth control. They oppose programs that help young pregnant women.  They mock women who need help supporting their family and call them welfare queens
> 
> Then they complain about abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not all that smart and you lie sometimes. To be frank.
> 
> You are confusing "sex education" with perverted sex education. For starters. You are confusing Catholics, who oppose birth control, with all other conservatives, who do not. You are just outright lying about "opposing programs that help young pregnant women". My church now has as its members a man who runs one of the biggest and most active pregnancy-support centers in the area. We regularly donate and work at this center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont try to blame the actions of conservatives on Catholics
> 
> Their voting records are readily available
> It was conservatives who oppose sex education and many still do
> They demand abstinence only education programs
> They fought against the Obamacare provision that insurance cover birth control
> 
> It seems you are the one who is lying again. You only wish you had a brain as big as mine
Click to expand...


You spew crap that isn't true--the above is no exception


----------



## Penelope

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another insecure male, that wants to control women.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about it? I personally knew a family years ago where a son impregnated his sister. He was arrested for the fact that she was a minor but she went ahead and had the baby and gave it up for adoption.
Click to expand...


Tell me more, what year was this and did she had info for an abortion and the means to have it?


----------



## rightwinger

SweetSue92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...you got us on that one
> 
> Women become pregnant. They are obviously ignorant, stupid or lazy. But the same conservatives who despise abortion also oppose funding for sex education, birth control and social programs to care for babies
> 
> But what happens when a woman becomes pregnant?  Most choose to keep the babies. Some are faced with a difficult decision to terminate.
> 
> Conservatives could make that decision easier.....they don’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we know, rightwinger. You think so little of women that without Big Daddy Government, they couldn't possibly know how to use or afford birth control on their own.
> 
> That's how stupid YOU think women are. However, luckily for you, there are women who can outthink you. Like me, for example. Every time, with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I were the one concerned about too many abortions, I would provide free birth control to all. I would convert ice cream trucks and drive through neighborhoods ringing a bell and handing out free birth control
> 
> But conservatives fight against sex education in our schools. They sue over a requirement for insurance companies to pay for birth control. They oppose programs that help young pregnant women.  They mock women who need help supporting their family and call them welfare queens
> 
> Then they complain about abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not all that smart and you lie sometimes. To be frank.
> 
> You are confusing "sex education" with perverted sex education. For starters. You are confusing Catholics, who oppose birth control, with all other conservatives, who do not. You are just outright lying about "opposing programs that help young pregnant women". My church now has as its members a man who runs one of the biggest and most active pregnancy-support centers in the area. We regularly donate and work at this center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont try to blame the actions of conservatives on Catholics
> 
> Their voting records are readily available
> It was conservatives who oppose sex education and many still do
> They demand abstinence only education programs
> They fought against the Obamacare provision that insurance cover birth control
> 
> It seems you are the one who is lying again. You only wish you had a brain as big as mine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spew crap that isn't true--the above is no exception
Click to expand...


Once again you are lying out of your pea sized brain


----------



## BlueGin

Leo123 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters not what anyone calls anybody, it still doesn't warrant a woman using abortion as a form of contraception after being irresponsible. Welfare queens whether white or black entails way more than just being a pro-choice individual in life, They are usually not responsible in many, many ways, and getting pregnant is just one of those many ways they are irresponsible in life about, and it usually ends with the father gone quickly afterwards.   The sad thing is, is then the government turns to others to pay the bills for the irresponsible bullcrap, and that has to end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, one would think that with all the contraceptives available today, outside of criminal rape, women would know better than to have an unwanted pregnancy and then have to abort a developing human being.
Click to expand...

Especially since contraception is free while abortions cost thousands of dollars.


----------



## BlueGin

rightwinger said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
Click to expand...

You mean like after slaughtering millions of unborn babies in the most heinous fashion and equating them to parasites...liberals then like to pretend that when they exploit living children for political reasons others are supposed to all of a sudden believe it’s because they “care”?


----------



## jknowgood

Penelope said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about it? I personally knew a family years ago where a son impregnated his sister. He was arrested for the fact that she was a minor but she went ahead and had the baby and gave it up for adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me more, what year was this and did she had info for an abortion and the means to have it?
Click to expand...

Lol, she had the baby and that pissed you off?


----------



## Wyatt earp

rightwinger said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
Click to expand...



I just re read exdous, so in your mind you think blacks should still be slaves today in America and thousands of Americans should of never died in the civil war?


It was the same fucking thing,..

The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt and God killed them to set them free



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

rightwinger said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no SweetSue92
> 
> The problem is that legislating and regulating abortion
> through Govt is GOING TO AFFECT THE WOMEN carrying
> the pregnancy, and not affecting the MEN even if the MEN
> coerced the women to get into those situations to begin with.
> 
> That's where the protest is coming from.
> 
> Where is the outrage and commitment to stop MEN
> from abusing women for sex with no responsibility for consequences?
> 
> That's the big question that is not being asked
> and never been addressed by legislative battles focusing
> on pregnancy AFTER THE FACT when it affects WOMEN more than men.
> 
> SweetSue92
> To avoid the whole "catch-22" of not being able to protect
> the life and rights of unborn persons without interfering with
> the equal rights and freedom of women, where this process is taking place
> inside their bodies, we'd have to agree on policies to PREVENT
> unwanted pregnancy IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> We prevent unwanted pregnancy, then we prevent abortion
> and thus prevent abortion politics from pitting the beliefs
> or rights of "one side vs. another" when "equal protection
> of the laws" would require ALL SIDES' beliefs and interests to be
> represented and protected EQUALLY.
> 
> If we cannot do that, if abortion laws would either compromise
> ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, then clearly ALL ABORTION would
> have to be PREVENTED WITHOUT RELYING ON PASSING LAWS
> unless all sides can AGREE on how such laws are written or enforced.
> 
> We'd have to stick to points and policies of agreement
> that would effectively prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.
> 
> Then ALL rights and beliefs would be protected equally, by preventing
> this conflicting situation from ever coming up in the first place!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just listing common sense and railing against biology--it's like making a fist and screaming at dark clouds that spill rain. You can do it, but it's unproductive and a waste of time.
> 
> Yes, women are the ones who get pregnant. It has always been so and, I suspect, will remain so for a very, very long time.
> 
> Yes, babies desperately need that human incubator. They need it for approximately nine months. Then they don't.
> 
> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership. They were not raped. They were not "coerced". They were ignorant, or stupid, or lazy. Or a mix of those three. Listen, if we want to be strong independent women, then let's be strong independent women and not sniveling little girls about our biology. Let's not cry about the fact that we can get pregnant, but actually own it, like grown women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup...you got us on that one
> 
> Women become pregnant. They are obviously ignorant, stupid or lazy. But the same conservatives who despise abortion also oppose funding for sex education, birth control and social programs to care for babies
> 
> But what happens when a woman becomes pregnant?  Most choose to keep the babies. Some are faced with a difficult decision to terminate.
> 
> Conservatives could make that decision easier.....they don’t
Click to expand...



Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?

Men's laws fluctuate like the wind, (prohibition and the like) depending how many people you can indoctrinate in your twisted sick ways...


Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..

Titus 3:9~10


.


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?



If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.



> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10



We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
Click to expand...



Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
Click to expand...



Btw you kill a woman with child in her womb it is double homicide in most all jurisdictions


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
Click to expand...


Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.


----------



## candycorn

beagle9 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.
> 
> Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re pro-life….you should be pro all life.
> 
> Actually, it’s not a few cells, there are millions of cells you guys kill every time you rub one out.
> 
> Why are you not pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really ??? You went there didn't ya ??? LMBO at the desperate attempts by the Democrats to defend the indefensible just as it had all finally gotten to be. Have you not kept up, it had gotten as far as infanticide with the talking points, yet it is still being defended ??
Click to expand...


It is noted that you cannot argue the science but are relegated to personal attacks.  

Thanks for the contribution..


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.
> 
> Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re pro-life….you should be pro all life.
> 
> Actually, it’s not a few cells, there are millions of cells you guys kill every time you rub one out.
> 
> Why are you not pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really ??? You went there didn't ya ??? LMBO at the desperate attempts by the Democrats to defend the indefensible just as it had all finally gotten to be. Have you not kept up, it had gotten as far as infanticide with the talking points, yet it is still being defended ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is noted that you cannot argue the science but are relegated to personal attacks.
> 
> Thanks for the contribution..
Click to expand...



Says the twat who thinks spilling semen is murder...Anti science


----------



## candycorn

SweetSue92 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.
> 
> Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re pro-life….you should be pro all life.
> 
> Actually, it’s not a few cells, there are millions of cells you guys kill every time you rub one out.
> 
> Why are you not pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This talking point is even more stupid that "My Body, My Choice". This one is so stupid it's confined to the Underworld of Talking Points--pretty much just forums and such. "Sperm is just like a developing baby"
> 
> And these folks say WE are "anti-science"
> 
> My fourth graders are laughing  at you
Click to expand...


The phrase “even more stupid” makes 2nd graders laugh at you.  

Living cells are living cells…right?  No?

As for dumb arguments, the Biblical folks here should consider that many births are stillbirths and many result in the mother’s death.  Was that God’s will to kill the unborn child?  To kill the mother? 

Please consider those questions and get back to us.  I’m guessing there will be no answers provided.  God must not have wanted you to answer.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


_A pregnancy resulting from rape is ‘gods plan.’ _

Another dreadful rightwing talking point.


----------



## Rustic

candycorn said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.
> 
> Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re pro-life….you should be pro all life.
> 
> Actually, it’s not a few cells, there are millions of cells you guys kill every time you rub one out.
> 
> Why are you not pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This talking point is even more stupid that "My Body, My Choice". This one is so stupid it's confined to the Underworld of Talking Points--pretty much just forums and such. "Sperm is just like a developing baby"
> 
> And these folks say WE are "anti-science"
> 
> My fourth graders are laughing  at you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase “even more stupid” makes 2nd graders laugh at you.
> 
> Living cells are living cells…right?  No?
> 
> As for dumb arguments, the Biblical folks here should consider that many births are stillbirths and many result in the mother’s death.  Was that God’s will to kill the unborn child?  To kill the mother?
> 
> Please consider those questions and get back to us.  I’m guessing there will be no answers provided.  God must not have wanted you to answer.
Click to expand...

Lol
The only truly innocent party involved in an abortion, is the baby the only one paying the ultimate price.

Sucks to be that baby... Extremely painful death

The vast majority of abortions are due to bad life choices, Rape and incest Make up for very few of abortions by percentage. Obviously those have to be dealt with and it should be up to the individual and law-enforcement.  But there is no reason why individuals should be paying for other individuals bad life choses. The country cannot afford it.... fact

Fuck the collective

But then again baby butchery is extremely profitable...


----------



## denmark

SweetSue92 said:


> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


I find YOUR talking points stupid.
Separate DNA. So what? Sperm have separate DNA. Lots of them are wasted.
Consider this ...
Many pregnant women (-25%) have  miscarriages. That is NATURAL.
Those natural abortions have unique DNA.
Welcome to the NORMAL world of ours!


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
Click to expand...


So was the First Amendment - specifically designed to prevent a theocracy. That must be frustrating for you.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
Click to expand...

Personal opinion and religious dogma are subjective and in no manner mitigate facts of law – the fact of law that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ and that abortion is not ‘murder.’


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So was the First Amendment - specifically designed to prevent a theocracy. That must be frustrating for you.
Click to expand...


Where in the Constitution does it say separation of church and state?

You mad bro?

Btw, men's laws are only for the law breakers unrighteous like you..the righteous like me inherit the full kingdom of God here on Earth and in heaven .. James 2:24

*James 2:24 *
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.


Matthew 5:20 ►
 
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So was the First Amendment - specifically designed to prevent a theocracy. That must be frustrating for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say separation of church and state?
Click to expand...


We're not a theocracy. 

It seems to really gnaw at you that I keep saying that. Why does it bother you so much? Is a theocracy what you want?


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So was the First Amendment - specifically designed to prevent a theocracy. That must be frustrating for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say separation of church and state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy.
> 
> It seems to really gnaw at you that I keep saying that. Why does it bother you so much? Is a theocracy what you want?
Click to expand...



You repeat that over and over again why? Once again men's laws change like the wind, just depends how many people are you indoctrinate into your evil ways



Timothy 1:9 ►
 


We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So was the First Amendment - specifically designed to prevent a theocracy. That must be frustrating for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say separation of church and state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy.
> 
> It seems to really gnaw at you that I keep saying that. Why does it bother you so much? Is a theocracy what you want?
Click to expand...



You do amuse me thinking you can indoctrinate me into your baby killing ways..


Are you that shallow?


.


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So was the First Amendment - specifically designed to prevent a theocracy. That must be frustrating for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say separation of church and state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy.
> 
> It seems to really gnaw at you that I keep saying that. Why does it bother you so much? Is a theocracy what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You repeat that over and over again why?
Click to expand...


Because it bothers you. And I wonder why. Is it because you want to convert the US to a theocracy? I can only conclude that is what you want - otherwise you'd just say "yep, we're not a theocracy". But you don't say that.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Penelope said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the woman should've controlled herself before having unprotected sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I  am all for prevention.  So what do you say about rape and incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about it? I personally knew a family years ago where a son impregnated his sister. He was arrested for the fact that she was a minor but she went ahead and had the baby and gave it up for adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me more, what year was this and did she had info for an abortion and the means to have it?
Click to expand...


Abortion was never considered as they were an evangelical family (the son obviously was not).


----------



## rightwinger

BlueGin said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like after slaughtering millions of unborn babies in the most heinous fashion and equating them to parasites...liberals then like to pretend that when they exploit living children for political reasons others are supposed to all of a sudden believe it’s because they “care”?
Click to expand...

Aborting an undeveloped embryo is not the same as God slaughtering a smiling, giggling little baby


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
Click to expand...



Does this make you mad baby killer, that I am at church right now?


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, oh yeah, anytime you guys jack off, all of the living spermatozoa die.  Should you be charged for murder?  If not…why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  You can't be serious. I mean, you are proving the OP absolutely correct by posting the most inane "argument" ever, in this debate. * A sperm by itself is not a human being.* *An egg by itself is not a human being.* *When the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception, only THEN do you have the beginning of a brand new, genetically unique human being.  * And don't give me the "it's just a few cells" line, because by the time most abortions occur, the preborn has a beating heart, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.
> 
> Come one guys, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing up the WORST, most blatantly incorrect responses in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re pro-life….you should be pro all life.
> 
> Actually, it’s not a few cells, there are millions of cells you guys kill every time you rub one out.
> 
> Why are you not pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This talking point is even more stupid that "My Body, My Choice". This one is so stupid it's confined to the Underworld of Talking Points--pretty much just forums and such. "Sperm is just like a developing baby"
> 
> And these folks say WE are "anti-science"
> 
> My fourth graders are laughing  at you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase “even more stupid” makes 2nd graders laugh at you.
> 
> Living cells are living cells…right?  No?
> 
> As for dumb arguments, the Biblical folks here should consider that many births are stillbirths and many result in the mother’s death.  Was that God’s will to kill the unborn child?  To kill the mother?
> 
> Please consider those questions and get back to us.  I’m guessing there will be no answers provided.  God must not have wanted you to answer.
Click to expand...



Yes it was God's plan, any more stupid questions?


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> Does this make you mad baby killer, that I am at church right now?



No, why? Is your church in favor of converting the US to a theocracy?


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make you mad baby killer, that I am at church right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, why? Is your church in favor of converting the US to a theocracy?
Click to expand...



I don't go to one church, I will go to a total of four today, already at a Catholic mass, this is Baptist, will go to a lutheran and Methodist later..


And guess what they all say.... Abortion is murder


.


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> I find YOUR talking points stupid.
> Separate DNA. So what? Sperm have separate DNA. ...
Click to expand...



Illogical. Fail.


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make you mad baby killer, that I am at church right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, why? Is your church in favor of converting the US to a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to one church, I will go to a total of four today, already at a Catholic mass, this is Baptist, will go to a lutheran and Methodist later..
> 
> 
> And guess what they all say.... Abortion is murder
Click to expand...


Do they say they want the US to be a theocracy? Do you? It's a simple question, yet you just can't bring yourself to answer it, can you? Why not? Is it because, like your Islamic cousins, that is, in fact, what you want? Could it be that you really _do_ want to force your religion on other people? Could that be it?


----------



## night_son

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



That abortion is essentially the* foundation* of women's rights. And then, abortionists murder millions of future women to the satisfaction of feminist activists. Derp! Guess they forgot to think that one through.


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> I find YOUR talking points stupid.
> Separate DNA. So what? Sperm have separate DNA. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
Click to expand...

You fail in explaining your claim.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the reason why was?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on tell us the entire story......
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
Click to expand...

Again, one can be opposed to abortion while at the same time defend a woman’s right to privacy – to do so is perfectly appropriate and consistent.

Those opposed to abortion on personal/religious grounds are at liberty to find a solution to end the practice consistent with the Constitution, the rule of law, and the right to privacy.

Indeed, the notion that ‘banning’ abortion is the only way to end the practice is as naïve as it is wrong.

It confirms the fact that those on the authoritarian right who seek to ‘ban’ abortion are more interested in compelling conformity than ending abortion.


----------



## August West

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make you mad baby killer, that I am at church right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, why? Is your church in favor of converting the US to a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to one church, I will go to a total of four today, already at a Catholic mass, this is Baptist, will go to a lutheran and Methodist later..
> 
> 
> And guess what they all say.... Abortion is murder
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Did any of those 4 churches send a bus full of parishioners to an anti-war protest? Do they ever talk about our mass shootings? How about healthcare?
Those are all pro-life issues. When the churches become pro-life across the board I`ll respect them. When the Catholic church ends their ban on artificial contraceptives I`ll believe they truly are anti-abortion. Until then I can`t take them seriously.


----------



## night_son

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make you mad baby killer, that I am at church right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, why? Is your church in favor of converting the US to a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to one church, I will go to a total of four today, already at a Catholic mass, this is Baptist, will go to a lutheran and Methodist later..
> 
> 
> And guess what they all say.... Abortion is murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they say they want the US to be a theocracy? Do you? It's a simple question, yet you just can't bring yourself to answer it, can you? Why not? Is it because, like your Islamic cousins, that is, in fact, what you want? Could it be that you really _do_ want to force your religion on other people? Could that be it?
Click to expand...


Religion has nothing to with_ it_, unless one chooses to make it so. Being anti-abortion is about being _Pro-human race_. However, I would not be surprised one iota if the rising backlash against postmodern insanity sweeping our great nation includes a sudden swing to Christian Theocracy and even an authoritarian smackdown against the Left. If that should happen, all you who wail for mass child murder will have no one to blame but your own reflections. Reap the whirlwind and all that . . .


----------



## Wyatt earp

August West said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make you mad baby killer, that I am at church right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, why? Is your church in favor of converting the US to a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to one church, I will go to a total of four today, already at a Catholic mass, this is Baptist, will go to a lutheran and Methodist later..
> 
> 
> And guess what they all say.... Abortion is murder
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did any of those 4 churches send a bus full of parishioners to an anti-war protest? Do they ever talk about our mass shootings? How about healthcare?
> Those are all pro-life issues. When the churches become pro-life across the board I`ll respect them. When the Catholic church ends their ban on artificial contraceptives I`ll believe they truly are anti-abortion. Until then I can`t take them seriously.
Click to expand...



Why?

This topic is about you liberals that can't figure out baby killing is murder


.


----------



## dblack

night_son said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make you mad baby killer, that I am at church right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, why? Is your church in favor of converting the US to a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to one church, I will go to a total of four today, already at a Catholic mass, this is Baptist, will go to a lutheran and Methodist later..
> 
> 
> And guess what they all say.... Abortion is murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they say they want the US to be a theocracy? Do you? It's a simple question, yet you just can't bring yourself to answer it, can you? Why not? Is it because, like your Islamic cousins, that is, in fact, what you want? Could it be that you really _do_ want to force your religion on other people? Could that be it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has nothing to with_ it_, unless one chooses to make it so.
Click to expand...


Totally agree. But bear513 seems to have a different agenda.


----------



## rightwinger

bear513 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make you mad baby killer, that I am at church right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, why? Is your church in favor of converting the US to a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to one church, I will go to a total of four today, already at a Catholic mass, this is Baptist, will go to a lutheran and Methodist later..
> 
> 
> And guess what they all say.... Abortion is murder
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did any of those 4 churches send a bus full of parishioners to an anti-war protest? Do they ever talk about our mass shootings? How about healthcare?
> Those are all pro-life issues. When the churches become pro-life across the board I`ll respect them. When the Catholic church ends their ban on artificial contraceptives I`ll believe they truly are anti-abortion. Until then I can`t take them seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> This topic is about you liberals that can't figure out baby killing is murder
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Should women who get abortions be charged with murder?


----------



## irosie91

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the day after pill if you are raped. No need in waiting till the baby is formed to kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about incest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God when you redefined marriage you all ready opened the door to normalize it. In 2015 a father and daughter went to New Jersey to get married because it's legal there. Oh and they plan to have children. Liberal policies at work. You are trying to normalize incest. Next is pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google it. Then see how redefining marriage opened a pandoras box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in NJ and was married in NJ
> 
> I want to see where a father and daughter can get married
Click to expand...


not in Jersey.      In my childhood  town ya can't do nuthin'-----jersey


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> I find YOUR talking points stupid.
> Separate DNA. So what? Sperm have separate DNA. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fail in explaining your claim.
Click to expand...



 Every cell in the body uses DNA, dumbass. Your failed argument about sperm is as stupid as claiming a man walking past a woman on the street is abortion, or clipping your toenails is abortion. It’s ignorant and stupid. The point is that a baby not yet born has a DNA unique from either the mother or the father. Go back to your high school biology teacher and ask for some extra help.


----------



## Penelope

theHawk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
Click to expand...


No one is pro abortion.  Females do not get pg so they can have an abortion.  Are you on crack?? I'm serious. 

Being  pro choice does not mean anyone is pro abortion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

night_son said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That abortion is essentially the* foundation* of women's rights. And then, abortionists murder millions of future women to the satisfaction of feminist activists. Derp! Guess they forgot to think that one through.
Click to expand...



*TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
59,115,995*

Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]

http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042


----------



## Penelope

PoliticalChic said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That abortion is essentially the* foundation* of women's rights. And then, abortionists murder millions of future women to the satisfaction of feminist activists. Derp! Guess they forgot to think that one through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
Click to expand...


and it was getting less and less every year.

Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??


----------



## beagle9

rightwinger said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
Click to expand...

Bringing the innocent home, and out of this hell is a bad thing eh ???? Do you realize that you are talking about God who is the creator of the soul that needs no flesh to live within ??? When man becomes so evil that God has to intervene, then the judgement is upon man come judgement day, and not the other way around you unwise evil human being.


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> I find YOUR talking points stupid.
> Separate DNA. So what? Sperm have separate DNA. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fail in explaining your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every cell in the body uses DNA, dumbass. Your failed argument about sperm is as stupid as claiming a man walking past a woman on the street is abortion, or clipping your toenails is abortion. It’s ignorant and stupid. The point is that a baby not yet born has a DNA unique from either the mother or the father. Go back to your high school biology teacher and ask for some extra help.
Click to expand...

I made references to SEPARATE DNA (as mentioned by the other poster) and UNIQUE DNA. The latter argument is a “so what?”; as I mentioned, about 25% of pregnancies (with unique DNA) are naturally aborted, as in miscarriages. 
You should go back to school and learn more about basic biology and nature.


----------



## night_son

Penelope said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is pro abortion.  Females do not get pg so they can have an abortion.  Are you on crack?? I'm serious.
> 
> Being  pro choice does not mean anyone is pro abortion.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what it means. You're following the word redefinition playbook bullet point by bullet point. You are *pro-death*. End of story.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That abortion is essentially the* foundation* of women's rights. And then, abortionists murder millions of future women to the satisfaction of feminist activists. Derp! Guess they forgot to think that one through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it was getting less and less every year.
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??
Click to expand...




So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?


If you were included, would that be too many?


----------



## Penelope

PoliticalChic said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That abortion is essentially the* foundation* of women's rights. And then, abortionists murder millions of future women to the satisfaction of feminist activists. Derp! Guess they forgot to think that one through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it was getting less and less every year.
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
Click to expand...


Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??  Government has never condomed murder and isn't about to. 

Do you think an ant has less of a life that you?? How do you know that an ant isn't created by God???


----------



## rightwinger

beagle9 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bringing the innocent home, and out of this hell is a bad thing eh ???? Do you realize that you are talking about God who is the creator of the soul that needs no flesh to live within ??? When man becomes so evil that God has to intervene, then the judgement is upon man come judgement day, and not the other way around you unwise evil human being.
Click to expand...

Abortion brings them home too....

Wait, they haven’t been baptized. God wants nothing to do with them


----------



## Penelope

> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."





> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior





So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​


----------



## beagle9

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That abortion is essentially the* foundation* of women's rights. And then, abortionists murder millions of future women to the satisfaction of feminist activists. Derp! Guess they forgot to think that one through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it was getting less and less every year.
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??  Government has never condomed murder and isn't about to.
> 
> Do you think a ant has less of a life that you?? How do you know that an ant isn't created by God???
Click to expand...

Good grief... Really !!!!! LMBO at such idiocy. It's getting dumber and dumber in here.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That abortion is essentially the* foundation* of women's rights. And then, abortionists murder millions of future women to the satisfaction of feminist activists. Derp! Guess they forgot to think that one through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it was getting less and less every year.
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??
Click to expand...




I have never been involved in abortion, or infanticide, two pillars of Liberal/Democrat doctrine, other than the half billion taxpayer dollars purloined by Democrats and handed over to Planned Murder.



It always bothered me how Hussein lied about this....

*Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.*

“.*...on abortion, Obama is an extremist.* He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also *voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. *

I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, *an alive infant *was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to *put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” *Infanticide candidate for president




…who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘*punished’* with a baby…..told this lie:


_You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings,* mammograms, *all kinds of basic health care.”_*— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012*

“*The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammogram*s, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests *an intentional attempt to mislead voters…*” 
Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms

"....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Post debunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
Planned Parenthood on the Defensive




Did his lies, or the murder of innocent babies, bother you?

Either one?


----------



## PoliticalChic

beagle9 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> That abortion is essentially the* foundation* of women's rights. And then, abortionists murder millions of future women to the satisfaction of feminist activists. Derp! Guess they forgot to think that one through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it was getting less and less every year.
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??  Government has never condomed murder and isn't about to.
> 
> Do you think a ant has less of a life that you?? How do you know that an ant isn't created by God???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief... Really !!!!! LMBO at such idiocy. It's getting dumber and dumber in here.
Click to expand...




If only it were funny.....or that said dopes couldn't vote....


----------



## Penelope

PoliticalChic said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> That abortion is essentially the* foundation* of women's rights. And then, abortionists murder millions of future women to the satisfaction of feminist activists. Derp! Guess they forgot to think that one through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it was getting less and less every year.
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been involved in abortion, or infanticide, two pillars of Liberal/Democrat doctrine, other than the half billion taxpayer dollars purloined by Democrats and handed over to Planned Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> It always bothered me how Hussein lied about this....
> 
> *Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.*
> 
> “.*...on abortion, Obama is an extremist.* He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also *voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. *
> 
> I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, *an alive infant *was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to *put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” *Infanticide candidate for president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘*punished’* with a baby…..told this lie:
> 
> 
> _You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings,* mammograms, *all kinds of basic health care.”_*— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012*
> 
> “*The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammogram*s, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests *an intentional attempt to mislead voters…*”
> Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms
> 
> "....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Post debunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
> Planned Parenthood on the Defensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did his lies, or the murder of innocent babies, bother you?
> 
> Either one?
Click to expand...


Please answer my questions:


Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??[/QUOTE]
​


----------



## PoliticalChic

buttercup said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking the same thing.  There really are no good arguments for abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is one of the easiest to debunk, as if it were actually true, it would apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy, up to moments before birth.  And only a sociopath would think that there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term, beautiful precious baby just minutes away from delivery simply because it's on the other side of the birth canal.
> 
> This is fitting for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"There really are no good arguments for abortion."*_
> 
> Then don't have one. At the same time, you don't get to impose your opinion upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*   You're further proving the point.
> 
> If you don't like rape, then don't rape but don't impose your opinion on rapists. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, but let slaveowners have their choice. If you don't like murder then don't murder but let murderers have their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your analogy fails you.
> 
> Rape is illegal. So is slavery. Abortion is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You're smarter than that.  Slavery was once legal, did that make it right?  Don't hide behind laws, unless you think laws = objective absolute truths that are always right and can never be questioned.
Click to expand...



The Nazis had tons of laws.....


----------



## night_son

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and it was getting less and less every year.
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been involved in abortion, or infanticide, two pillars of Liberal/Democrat doctrine, other than the half billion taxpayer dollars purloined by Democrats and handed over to Planned Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> It always bothered me how Hussein lied about this....
> 
> *Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.*
> 
> “.*...on abortion, Obama is an extremist.* He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also *voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. *
> 
> I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, *an alive infant *was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to *put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” *Infanticide candidate for president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘*punished’* with a baby…..told this lie:
> 
> 
> _You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings,* mammograms, *all kinds of basic health care.”_*— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012*
> 
> “*The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammogram*s, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests *an intentional attempt to mislead voters…*”
> Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms
> 
> "....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Post debunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
> Planned Parenthood on the Defensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did his lies, or the murder of innocent babies, bother you?
> 
> Either one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please answer my questions:
> 
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??​
Click to expand...



Why are you equating the value of insect and rodent life to precious human life? That you would dare do so speaks volumes about your state of mind.​


----------



## Vandalshandle

These guys sure do want to control my wife and daughter's bodies, and reproduction rights. I will agree to that just as soon as they give me total control over their weapons.

Just kidding! My family is not yielding control of their bodies to anyone, ever.


----------



## beagle9

rightwinger said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> 
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bringing the innocent home, and out of this hell is a bad thing eh ???? Do you realize that you are talking about God who is the creator of the soul that needs no flesh to live within ??? When man becomes so evil that God has to intervene, then the judgement is upon man come judgement day, and not the other way around you unwise evil human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion brings them home too....
> 
> Wait, they haven’t been baptized. God wants nothing to do with them
Click to expand...

Not by God's calling are they leaving this world, but they are leaving here by the irresponsible human hand who is attempting to play God for whom they know nothing about sadly enough. If they did they wouldn't do what they do. The two thieves upon the cross weren't baptized, yet the one entered into heaven upon his passing. John said surely I baptize thee by water, but there comes one who will baptize thee with the holy ghost. Quit making a nut job of yourself, as no one is as dumb as you hope they are.


----------



## strollingbones

God was good with abortion in the old testament


----------



## beagle9

night_son said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> and it was getting less and less every year.
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been involved in abortion, or infanticide, two pillars of Liberal/Democrat doctrine, other than the half billion taxpayer dollars purloined by Democrats and handed over to Planned Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> It always bothered me how Hussein lied about this....
> 
> *Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.*
> 
> “.*...on abortion, Obama is an extremist.* He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also *voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. *
> 
> I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, *an alive infant *was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to *put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” *Infanticide candidate for president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘*punished’* with a baby…..told this lie:
> 
> 
> _You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings,* mammograms, *all kinds of basic health care.”_*— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012*
> 
> “*The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammogram*s, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests *an intentional attempt to mislead voters…*”
> Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms
> 
> "....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Post debunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
> Planned Parenthood on the Defensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did his lies, or the murder of innocent babies, bother you?
> 
> Either one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please answer my questions:
> 
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you equating the value of insect and rodent life to precious human life? That you would dare do so speaks volumes about your state of mind.​
Click to expand...

Their desperation is un-yielding here.


----------



## night_son

Vandalshandle said:


> These guys sure do want to control my wife and daughter's bodies, and reproduction rights. I will agree to that just as soon as they give me total control over their weapons.
> 
> Just kidding! My family is not yielding control of their bodies to anyone, ever.



They already have. They've yielded control of their bodies to radical and sadistic ideologues such as Le Marquis de Sade and Margaret Sanger. Further, should they commit abortion, they've erased* all* control their aborted child had over its body. Didn't think this through, did you?


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> These guys sure do want to control my wife and daughter's bodies, and reproduction rights. I will agree to that just as soon as they give me total control over their weapons.
> 
> Just kidding! My family is not yielding control of their bodies to anyone, ever.



Indeed. In fact, this is exactly the reason we should never give up our gun rights.


----------



## Penelope

beagle9 said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been involved in abortion, or infanticide, two pillars of Liberal/Democrat doctrine, other than the half billion taxpayer dollars purloined by Democrats and handed over to Planned Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> It always bothered me how Hussein lied about this....
> 
> *Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.*
> 
> “.*...on abortion, Obama is an extremist.* He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also *voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. *
> 
> I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, *an alive infant *was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to *put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” *Infanticide candidate for president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘*punished’* with a baby…..told this lie:
> 
> 
> _You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings,* mammograms, *all kinds of basic health care.”_*— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012*
> 
> “*The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammogram*s, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests *an intentional attempt to mislead voters…*”
> Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms
> 
> "....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Post debunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
> Planned Parenthood on the Defensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did his lies, or the murder of innocent babies, bother you?
> 
> Either one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please answer my questions:
> 
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you equating the value of insect and rodent life to precious human life? That you would dare do so speaks volumes about your state of mind.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their desperation is un-yielding here.
Click to expand...


Have you ever killed an ant?? or a fly??


----------



## SAYIT

Faun said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.
Click to expand...

That you cling to that silliness is a reflection on you. As the OP noted, it may still be legal but there is no good argument for abortion.


----------



## Kittymom1026

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
Click to expand...


Uh, no we aren't and never was. The founding fathers were Deists and made sure there is separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, but also allows freedom FROM religion. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the *freedom* of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## beagle9

strollingbones said:


> God was good with abortion in the old testament


Again, yet another who question's God, yet you are merely a human whom has no power over death or over life except that you sin by advocating the killing of babies in which God chooses to breathe life into, yet you sinfully take that life away once living in the womb ??


----------



## PoliticalChic

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and it was getting less and less every year.
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been involved in abortion, or infanticide, two pillars of Liberal/Democrat doctrine, other than the half billion taxpayer dollars purloined by Democrats and handed over to Planned Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> It always bothered me how Hussein lied about this....
> 
> *Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.*
> 
> “.*...on abortion, Obama is an extremist.* He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also *voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. *
> 
> I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, *an alive infant *was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to *put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” *Infanticide candidate for president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘*punished’* with a baby…..told this lie:
> 
> 
> _You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings,* mammograms, *all kinds of basic health care.”_*— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012*
> 
> “*The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammogram*s, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests *an intentional attempt to mislead voters…*”
> Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms
> 
> "....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Post debunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
> Planned Parenthood on the Defensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did his lies, or the murder of innocent babies, bother you?
> 
> Either one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please answer my questions:
> 
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??​
Click to expand...

​[/QUOTE]



Some of us get our wisdom from the NYTimes, and some from the Bible.


This may both tell where I get mine, and answer your question:

*Genesis 1:26-28 *
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.



Do you believe this....or do you still cling to the Democrat's plan, slavery?


----------



## PoliticalChic

beagle9 said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of government supported murder of innocent human beings....as long as it is not too many?
> 
> 
> If you were included, would that be too many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been involved in abortion, or infanticide, two pillars of Liberal/Democrat doctrine, other than the half billion taxpayer dollars purloined by Democrats and handed over to Planned Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> It always bothered me how Hussein lied about this....
> 
> *Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.*
> 
> “.*...on abortion, Obama is an extremist.* He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also *voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. *
> 
> I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, *an alive infant *was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to *put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” *Infanticide candidate for president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘*punished’* with a baby…..told this lie:
> 
> 
> _You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings,* mammograms, *all kinds of basic health care.”_*— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012*
> 
> “*The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammogram*s, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests *an intentional attempt to mislead voters…*”
> Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms
> 
> "....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Post debunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
> Planned Parenthood on the Defensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did his lies, or the murder of innocent babies, bother you?
> 
> Either one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please answer my questions:
> 
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you equating the value of insect and rodent life to precious human life? That you would dare do so speaks volumes about your state of mind.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their desperation is un-yielding here.
Click to expand...



....and the anger and resentment.

Almost as though they sense that they are losing.


----------



## Kittymom1026

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Nope it wasn't...

The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.


----------



## night_son

PoliticalChic said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me, have you ever killed an ant? Do you eat mushrooms or meat??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been involved in abortion, or infanticide, two pillars of Liberal/Democrat doctrine, other than the half billion taxpayer dollars purloined by Democrats and handed over to Planned Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> It always bothered me how Hussein lied about this....
> 
> *Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.*
> 
> “.*...on abortion, Obama is an extremist.* He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also *voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. *
> 
> I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, *an alive infant *was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to *put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” *Infanticide candidate for president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘*punished’* with a baby…..told this lie:
> 
> 
> _You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings,* mammograms, *all kinds of basic health care.”_*— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012*
> 
> “*The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammogram*s, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests *an intentional attempt to mislead voters…*”
> Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms
> 
> "....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Post debunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
> Planned Parenthood on the Defensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did his lies, or the murder of innocent babies, bother you?
> 
> Either one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please answer my questions:
> 
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you equating the value of insect and rodent life to precious human life? That you would dare do so speaks volumes about your state of mind.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their desperation is un-yielding here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ....and the anger and resentment.
> 
> Almost as though they sense that they are losing.
Click to expand...


Agreed. They're losing for sure because abortion is a terrible burden both to ideologically support and be a part of committing. It is perhaps one of the heaviest weights one could ever bear. They're well aware of this. It rots them stem to stern, inside and out.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no we aren't and never was. The founding fathers were Deists and made sure there is separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, but also allows freedom FROM religion.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the *freedom* of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...


 "The founding fathers were Deists..."


You must be a government school grad, huh?


No, they weren't 'deists.'



Let's prove it together.


The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.

a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*






https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious

As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.

As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'

de•ism
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google




*"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”


I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.
*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
Click to expand...




Of course it was, you dope.


The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.

And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.


1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.

Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


----------



## PoliticalChic

night_son said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been involved in abortion, or infanticide, two pillars of Liberal/Democrat doctrine, other than the half billion taxpayer dollars purloined by Democrats and handed over to Planned Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> It always bothered me how Hussein lied about this....
> 
> *Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.*
> 
> “.*...on abortion, Obama is an extremist.* He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also *voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. *
> 
> I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, *an alive infant *was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to *put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” *Infanticide candidate for president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘*punished’* with a baby…..told this lie:
> 
> 
> _You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings,* mammograms, *all kinds of basic health care.”_*— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012*
> 
> “*The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammogram*s, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests *an intentional attempt to mislead voters…*”
> Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms
> 
> "....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Post debunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
> Planned Parenthood on the Defensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did his lies, or the murder of innocent babies, bother you?
> 
> Either one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please answer my questions:
> 
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you equating the value of insect and rodent life to precious human life? That you would dare do so speaks volumes about your state of mind.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their desperation is un-yielding here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ....and the anger and resentment.
> 
> Almost as though they sense that they are losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. They're losing for sure because abortion is a terrible burden both to ideologically support and be a part of committing. It is perhaps one of the heaviest weights one could ever bear. They're well aware of this. It rots them stem to stern, inside and out.
Click to expand...




What's left for them?


The usual: violence.


----------



## night_son

PoliticalChic said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please answer my questions:
> 
> 
> Do you kill a pregnant ant, and do you make sure its not pregnant before you do by doing an ultrasound??  Or how about a mouse that got into your home?? Kill any of them?  Do you eat mushrooms or meat or even eggs??​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you equating the value of insect and rodent life to precious human life? That you would dare do so speaks volumes about your state of mind.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their desperation is un-yielding here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ....and the anger and resentment.
> 
> Almost as though they sense that they are losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. They're losing for sure because abortion is a terrible burden both to ideologically support and be a part of committing. It is perhaps one of the heaviest weights one could ever bear. They're well aware of this. It rots them stem to stern, inside and out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's left for them?
> 
> 
> 
> The usual: violence.
Click to expand...


What's left for them to* do* is deception, misinformation, psychological warfare and real mass violence . . . if they do not do these terrible things, then no one in their right (un-brainwashed minds) will ever touch or even consider joining the abortion club. The abortion ideology is all about justification for perhaps the most inhuman act imaginable. Justification . . . because doing atrocity is much easier as a member of a group then as a rational, compassionate individual . . . history has proven time and time and time again . . .


----------



## Kittymom1026

PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was, you dope.
> 
> 
> The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.
> 
> And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
> 
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> 
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
Click to expand...

Figures that you'd go to the most RW religious site to try to prove your point.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was, you dope.
> 
> 
> The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.
> 
> And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
> 
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> 
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Figures that you'd go to the most RW religious site to try to prove your point.
Click to expand...




So you agree that you can't find a single error in the post.....but, like a good German.....er, Liberal.....you refuse to learn from it.


----------



## Kittymom1026

PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was, you dope.
> 
> 
> The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.
> 
> And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
> 
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> 
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Figures that you'd go to the most RW religious site to try to prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that you can't find a single error in the post.....but, like a good German.....er, Liberal.....you refuse to learn from it.
Click to expand...

I already posted an article about it.

The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.


The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> .......about 25% of pregnancies (with unique DNA) are naturally aborted, as in miscarriages.
> You should go back to school and learn more about basic biology and nature.



Illogical. Fail.




Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?


----------



## Kittymom1026

PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no we aren't and never was. The founding fathers were Deists and made sure there is separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, but also allows freedom FROM religion.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the *freedom* of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The founding fathers were Deists..."
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> No, they weren't 'deists.'
> 
> 
> 
> Let's prove it together.
> 
> 
> The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.
> 
> a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
> b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
> c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.
> 
> As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.*
Click to expand...


*Deism and the Founding Fathers*
As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.






*Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.

Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com


----------



## Kittymom1026

PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was, you dope.
> 
> 
> The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.
> 
> And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
> 
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> 
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
Click to expand...

Uh, the Sabbath is actually from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

ETA: Anyone who throws out insults loses all credibility. Not once in any of my replies have I thrown out any insults, but feel free to continuing to insult me if it makes you feel better about yourself.


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......about 25% of pregnancies (with unique DNA) are naturally aborted, as in miscarriages.
> You should go back to school and learn more about basic biology and nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?
Click to expand...

Illogical. Fail.
There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was, you dope.
> 
> 
> The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.
> 
> And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
> 
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> 
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Figures that you'd go to the most RW religious site to try to prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that you can't find a single error in the post.....but, like a good German.....er, Liberal.....you refuse to learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already posted an article about it.
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
Click to expand...



I just proved the opposite....you can check what I said.....

....and then, guess again.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no we aren't and never was. The founding fathers were Deists and made sure there is separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, but also allows freedom FROM religion.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the *freedom* of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The founding fathers were Deists..."
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> No, they weren't 'deists.'
> 
> 
> 
> Let's prove it together.
> 
> 
> The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.
> 
> a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
> b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
> c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.
> 
> As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Deism and the Founding Fathers*
> As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.
> 
> Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com
Click to expand...




More? 
Sure thing:

4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'

de•ism
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google




5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
*

Let’s start with George Washington.

Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States. 

Here is Washington at his first Inaugural: 
“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.” 
In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.


Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”

Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.


6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!

"*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”


a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.” 

Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?

Definitely, no.
*


Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *

So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
Ibid.


7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”

As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.



These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.

It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *


It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious


And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
“52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh


Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?

Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.

8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays




9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.

There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence

1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.


Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.


And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
"The Year of Our Lord" and separation.



This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.

Maybe three: lie.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was, you dope.
> 
> 
> The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.
> 
> And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
> 
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> 
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, the Sabbath is actually from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
> 
> ETA: Anyone who throws out insults loses all credibility. Not once in any of my replies have I thrown out any insults, but feel free to continuing to insult me if it makes you feel better about yourself.
Click to expand...




Could you provide several of the books that have informed your geopolitical views?



Just kiddin'.....I know that Liberals don't read.


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter.


----------



## Vandalshandle

night_son said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys sure do want to control my wife and daughter's bodies, and reproduction rights. I will agree to that just as soon as they give me total control over their weapons.
> 
> Just kidding! My family is not yielding control of their bodies to anyone, ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have. They've yielded control of their bodies to radical and sadistic ideologues such as Le Marquis de Sade and Margaret Sanger. Further, should they commit abortion, they've erased* all* control their aborted child had over its body. Didn't think this through, did you?
Click to expand...


Child, I have thought this through for probably 3 or more of your lifetimes. I am amused, however, of you introducing Le Marquis de Sade and Margate Sanger to the discussion. I am waiting for you to introduce Chairman Mao and Jim Jones into the topic....


----------



## LilOlLady

strollingbones said:


> God was good with abortion in the old testament


The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......about 25% of pregnancies (with unique DNA) are naturally aborted, as in miscarriages.
> You should go back to school and learn more about basic biology and nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
Click to expand...


Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was good with abortion in the old testament
> 
> 
> 
> The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.
Click to expand...


The New Testament became obsolete when people realized that it was all a myth.


----------



## strollingbones

you cant opt out of the bibles books....the new testament does not out weight the old testament....the word of jesus does not ovver come the word of god...now does it?


----------



## LilOlLady

Penelope said:


> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.

Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).

However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to animals.


----------



## night_son

Vandalshandle said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys sure do want to control my wife and daughter's bodies, and reproduction rights. I will agree to that just as soon as they give me total control over their weapons.
> 
> Just kidding! My family is not yielding control of their bodies to anyone, ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have. They've yielded control of their bodies to radical and sadistic ideologues such as Le Marquis de Sade and Margaret Sanger. Further, should they commit abortion, they've erased* all* control their aborted child had over its body. Didn't think this through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child, I have thought this through for probably 3 or more of your lifetimes. I am amused, however, of you introducing Le Marquis de Sade and Margate Sanger to the discussion. I am waiting for you to introduce Chairman Mao and Jim Jones into the topic....
Click to expand...


When all else fails: *condescension*. How typical. I suppose you expect me to respond in kind. I'd rather do myself the kindness of not dirtying my boots in your predictably weak and diluted lack of polished rhetoric. That you're unaware of the history of post-Enlightenment Era abortion, its culture, politics and founding ideology, is exactly what I suspected. Many thanks for verifying your ignorance. Confirms my educated conviction you'd rapidly change your tune had you a clue.


----------



## Kittymom1026

PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no we aren't and never was. The founding fathers were Deists and made sure there is separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, but also allows freedom FROM religion.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the *freedom* of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The founding fathers were Deists..."
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> No, they weren't 'deists.'
> 
> 
> 
> Let's prove it together.
> 
> 
> The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.
> 
> a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
> b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
> c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.
> 
> As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Deism and the Founding Fathers*
> As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.
> 
> Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More?
> Sure thing:
> 
> 4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> *
> 
> Let’s start with George Washington.
> 
> Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States.
> 
> Here is Washington at his first Inaugural:
> “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
> In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
> 
> 
> Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”
> 
> Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.
> 
> 
> 6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!
> 
> "*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”
> 
> 
> a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.”
> 
> Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?
> 
> Definitely, no.
> *
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *
> 
> So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”
> 
> As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.
> 
> 
> 
> These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.
> 
> It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *
> 
> 
> It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> 
> And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?
> 
> Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.
> 
> 8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.
> 
> 
> And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
> "The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.
> 
> Maybe three: lie.
Click to expand...

Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion. 
And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God." 
Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do. 
And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can. 
Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that? 
You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.


----------



## LilOlLady

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only he that gives life has the right to take lives. When did he kill thousands of babies? In the flood? Sodam and Gomorrah, Cannan when he orders the Jews to kill all the man women children and every living being? Then he tells us *"Thou shall not kill"*  All that happened in the bible was for a reason and I don't know what it really is. Some Christians believe he is going to kill even more by sending them to hell. I have to believe all those aborted will be resurrected to life in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal opinion and religious dogma are subjective and in no manner mitigate facts of law – the fact of law that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ and that abortion is not ‘murder.’
Click to expand...


GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD>


----------



## strollingbones

are men going to pay child support the moment of conception....can you get life insurance on the fetus?


----------



## Vandalshandle

night_son said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys sure do want to control my wife and daughter's bodies, and reproduction rights. I will agree to that just as soon as they give me total control over their weapons.
> 
> Just kidding! My family is not yielding control of their bodies to anyone, ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have. They've yielded control of their bodies to radical and sadistic ideologues such as Le Marquis de Sade and Margaret Sanger. Further, should they commit abortion, they've erased* all* control their aborted child had over its body. Didn't think this through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child, I have thought this through for probably 3 or more of your lifetimes. I am amused, however, of you introducing Le Marquis de Sade and Margate Sanger to the discussion. I am waiting for you to introduce Chairman Mao and Jim Jones into the topic....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When all else fails: *condescension*. How typical. I suppose you expect me to respond in kind. I'd rather do myself the kindness of not dirtying my boots in your predictably weak and diluted lack of polished rhetoric. That you're unaware of the history of post-Enlightenment Era abortion, its culture, politics and founding ideology, is exactly what I suspected. Many thanks for verifying your ignorance. Confirms my educated conviction you'd rapidly change your tune had you a clue.
Click to expand...


I am so pleased that you did not dirty your boots while insulting me three ways from Sunday!!!!!!


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal opinion and religious dogma are subjective and in no manner mitigate facts of law – the fact of law that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ and that abortion is not ‘murder.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD>
Click to expand...


Islamics everywhere rejoice in your validation!!!!!


----------



## Kittymom1026

LilOlLady said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
Click to expand...


You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.


----------



## LilOlLady

"For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet* unformed,* and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them" (Psalm 139:13-16, NKJV).

*"Before I formed you in the womb I knew yo*u, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5, NIV).


----------



## Kittymom1026

LilOlLady said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to animals.
Click to expand...

Will you please stop with the preaching? This site is made up of members of many different religions, or no religion at all and I'm sure many are tired of all of your bible quotes and preaching.


PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was, you dope.
> 
> 
> The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.
> 
> And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
> 
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> 
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Figures that you'd go to the most RW religious site to try to prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that you can't find a single error in the post.....but, like a good German.....er, Liberal.....you refuse to learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already posted an article about it.
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved the opposite....you can check what I said.....
> 
> ....and then, guess again.
Click to expand...


----------



## LilOlLady

Kittymom1026 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
Click to expand...

I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.


----------



## Kittymom1026

LilOlLady said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
Click to expand...

Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.


----------



## LilOlLady

"If men who are fighting hit *a pregnant woman* and she *gives birth prematurely* but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is *serious injury, y*ou are to take *life for life,* eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" (Exodus 21:22-25, NIV).


----------



## LilOlLady

*Should a Child Conceived as a Result of Rape or Incest Be Aborted?*

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, *nor shall children be put to death for their fathers;* a person shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16, NKJV


----------



## MindWars

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


It's a big club and you ain't inn it.............   " ELITES" are who say that not George carlin stupid fk. 
Just like democratic ****s took what  Candace Owens said this is the same here
it's a LIE!!

GO LEARN ABOUT CLOWARD AND PIVEN DUMB ASSES!!!

*Is The Cloward-Piven Strategy Being Used To Destroy America? *


“_*You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before...”*_

In light of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, which is at its very core a method to artificially induce crisis, the otherwise insane policy actions of the Obama Administration and preceding puppet presidents now become perfectly logical. Obama, after all, has been a long time proponent of the methods of Saul Alinsky, the left wing gatekeeper equivalent to Neo-Con godfather Leo Strauss. Cloward and Piven were also both avid followers of Alinsky, who promoted lies, misdirection, subversion, and abandonment of conscience in order to win social power at any cost (special note – Alinsky also dedicated his book 'Rules For Radicals' to Lucifer...yeah, to the friggin' devil).

*Under Obama's watch alone, our real national debt including unfunded liabilities and entitlements has risen to nearly $200 trillion*. Our “official” national debt has gone from $10 trillion to $17 trillion in the short time Obama has been in office. Real unemployment including U-6 measurements stands at around 20% of all Americans. Personal wealth and savings have plummeted. Wages remain in stasis while prices on necessary goods continue to rise.

In my articles 'The Socialization Of America Is Economically Impossible' and 'Obamacare: Is It A Divide-And-Conquer Distraction?', I examined much evidence suggesting that Obamacare was actually designed to fail, and that the bumbling of the Obama White House when dealing with the program was purely deliberate. When coupled with Obama's handling of the current illegal immigration conflict, I would say that the Cloward-Piven Strategy is in full force.

*Why fight tooth and nail against all common sense and history, why lie openly to millions of registered voters to get the program in place, only to allow it to derail because of a poorly designed website!? Because, Obama and his handlers know full well that it will end up costing the country billions that we cannot afford, and aid in a resulting crash.*

*Why the sudden surge of illegal immigrants into the U.S.? Why not!* The White House has made it clear that it has every intention of keeping them within America by allowing the border patrol to ship the detained across the country where they are then released. Obama's threat to use executive action to force through his own version of the immigration bill is the icing on the cake. Amnesty is essentially guaranteed, I believe, in the near term, which is why tens of thousands of Central American parents are willing to send their children on a journey where they could very well be kidnapped by sex traffickers or killed. If the White House really wanted to stop this humanitarian crisis, the President would state publicly and clearly that America is not a drive through welfare center, that there will be no free goodies at the second window, and that there will be no chance of amnesty, instead of diverting more agents to the border to ensure more illegals are shipped into the interior.

*The president does not wish to stop the flood of immigrants exactly because Cloward-Piven requires their presence.* Not only would this officially add millions of people to welfare rolls, but I would venture to suggest that Obama will likely include automatic sign-up to universal healthcare as part of his amnesty measures.

*If there wasn't enough strain on the social welfare structure before, there certainly will be now.*

I would remind readers, though, that in the final analysis this is NOT about Obama. I have seen other commentators including Glenn Beck discuss Cloward-Piven in the past, but always through the blinders of the false left/right paradigm. Obama could not have attained the levels of destabilization he has without standing on the shoulders of those political errand boys who came before him. Ronald Reagan, for instance, was also responsible for signing the Immigration Reform And Control Act of 1986 into law, which was supposed to trade the amnesty of 3 million illegals for greater border security.  This new "more comprehensive" security was never implemented by Reagan. * Both Republican and Democratic regimes have made our current calamity possible, and the leaderships behind both parties are nothing more than paid mascots for international financiers and globalists who have a very different vision of what America should be.*

If we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of making the developing crisis about a singularly unimportant

man such as Obama, then the elites get exactly what they want – an angry and desperate citizenry out for the blood of a middleman and out for the blood of each other, while they sit back, relax, and wait to swoop in as our financial saviors with strings attached.

For those naïve enough to assume that Cloward-Piven is just a well intentioned activist method, it is important to understand that even if that were so, the effect of the Cloward-Piven Strategy will never achieve the goal its creators claimed to support. In my view, it is probable that they never really intended for it to produce wealth equality or an increased quality of life.

*The tactic can only decrease wealth security by making all citizens equally destitute. As we have seen in numerous socialist and communist experiments over the past century, economic harmonization never creates wealth or prosperity, it only siphons wealth from one area and redistributes it to others, evaporating much of it as it is squeezed through the grinding gears of the establishment machine. Socialism, in its very essence, elevates government to the role of all-pervasive parent, and casts the citizenry down into the role of dependent sniveling infant. Even in its most righteous form, Cloward-Piven seeks to make infants of us all, whether we like it or not.*

Is The Cloward-Piven Strategy Being Used To Destroy America?


----------



## LilOlLady

"Behold, children are *a gift of the LORD*; the *fruit of the womb is a reward*" (Psalm 127:3, NASV).

"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that* you are not your own*? For you have been *bought with a price*: therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, NKJV).


----------



## Kittymom1026

PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was, you dope.
> 
> 
> The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.
> 
> And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
> 
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> 
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Figures that you'd go to the most RW religious site to try to prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that you can't find a single error in the post.....but, like a good German.....er, Liberal.....you refuse to learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already posted an article about it.
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved the opposite....you can check what I said.....
> 
> ....and then, guess again.
Click to expand...

The opposite of what? The sabbath? Sunday is the first day, not the seventh.

View attachment 261565Reply
www.sabbathtruth.com
The *Sabbath* is commanded by God. Every week religious Jews observe the *Sabbath*, the Jewish holy day, and keep its laws and customs. The *Sabbath* begins at nightfall on Friday and lasts until nightfall on Saturday.Jul 15, 2009
*BBC - Religions - Judaism: Sabbath*


----------



## BlueGin

rightwinger said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> 
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like after slaughtering millions of unborn babies in the most heinous fashion and equating them to parasites...liberals then like to pretend that when they exploit living children for political reasons others are supposed to all of a sudden believe it’s because they “care”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aborting an undeveloped embryo is not the same as God slaughtering a smiling, giggling little baby
Click to expand...


Are you referring to the Passover? Keep in mind the pharaoh killed the male children of the enslaved Jews because he didn’t want their population to grow bigger than that of the Egyptians. This angered the lord and brought about Moses.

Pharaoh was told to free the slaves by God ( thru Moses) . He refused. Hence the plagues that set upon Egypt. One of which was the deaths of first born. God did not kill all of the children ...he told his people how to avoid the death of their first born. The faithful that followed his instructions were passed over.

So...if you are going to use this as a talking point...use it in context...or not at all.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> "Behold, children are *a gift of the LORD*; the *fruit of the womb is a reward*" (Psalm 127:3, NASV).
> 
> "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that* you are not your own*? For you have been *bought with a price*: therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, NKJV).



Jerry Falwell? I though that you were dead!


----------



## LilOlLady

*Proverbs 29:18-27*
 18 *A nation without God's guidance is a nation without order*. Happy are those who *keep God's law! *
19 You cannot correct servants just by talking to them. They may understand you, but they will pay no attention. 
20 There is more hope for a stupid fool than for someone who speaks without thinking. 
21 If you give your servants everything they want from childhood on, some day they will take over everything you own. 
22 People with quick tempers cause a lot of quarreling and trouble. 
23*Arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected*. 
24 A thief's partner is his own worst enemy. He will be punished if he tells the truth in court, and God will curse him if he doesn't. 
25 It is dangerous to be concerned with what others think of you, but if you trust the Lord, you are safe. 
26 Everybody wants the good will of the ruler, but only from the Lord can you get justice. 
27 *The righteous hate the wicked, and the wicked hate the righteous.*


----------



## strollingbones




----------



## Vandalshandle

Time to bail out. I stopped going to church in 1959. I see no reason to be subjected to sheep herding now....


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......about 25% of pregnancies (with unique DNA) are naturally aborted, as in miscarriages.
> You should go back to school and learn more about basic biology and nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
Click to expand...

No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
Don’t be an illogical authoritarian extremist.


----------



## Kittymom1026

Vandalshandle said:


> Time to bail out. I stopped going to church in 1959. I see no reason to be subjected to sheep herding now....


I've asked her to quit preaching but she just won't.


----------



## LilOlLady

Kittymom1026 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
Click to expand...

The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......about 25% of pregnancies (with unique DNA) are naturally aborted, as in miscarriages.
> You should go back to school and learn more about basic biology and nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
Click to expand...



You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.


----------



## Kittymom1026

LilOlLady said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
Click to expand...

You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.


----------



## LilOlLady

* Definition of abortion*. 1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the *death of the embryo or fetus:* such as. a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation 
Dumb Asses...*you cannot kill something that is not alive. *


----------



## BlueGin

Vandalshandle said:


> Time to bail out. I stopped going to church in 1959. I see no reason to be subjected to sheep herding now....


Don’t invoke scripture to push liberal talking points and you won’t have to listen to it.


----------



## beagle9

LilOlLady said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
Click to expand...

Even a tree dies once cut down.


----------



## LilOlLady

Kittymom1026 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
Click to expand...


In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.


----------



## BlueGin

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......about 25% of pregnancies (with unique DNA) are naturally aborted, as in miscarriages.
> You should go back to school and learn more about basic biology and nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
Click to expand...

Exactly


----------



## ph3iron

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


Every other educated country including Israel has legal abortion?
You didn't say how many adopted kids you have.
I agree, women get pregnant just so they can enjoy the pleasures of abortion?
I presume you never used contraception?
If you ever made love that is!!!


----------



## ph3iron

BlueGin said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
Click to expand...

And join a nutty church perhaps?


----------



## ph3iron

LilOlLady said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
Click to expand...

Iguess you believe God where he says you kick a cheating woman in the stomach to get rid of her illegal kid?


----------



## ph3iron

theHawk said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations.
> 
> The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most women only need assistance because the father runs out on them, or because they have the attitude that they don’t need a man.
> 
> Again, all the lies of feminism cause most of this shit.
Click to expand...

I too am a proud member of the "zip it up,see you  later" brigade
Nice to be so zero college righteous isn't it?


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......about 25% of pregnancies (with unique DNA) are naturally aborted, as in miscarriages.
> You should go back to school and learn more about basic biology and nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
Click to expand...

I am fine with my moral compass. I don’t stick my subjective nose into other personal affairs unless they need assistance. I believe strongly in the Planned Parenthood philosophy.


----------



## Unkotare

Kittymom1026 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
Click to expand...



Clearly, you lack the courage to even look at the issue honestly and directly.


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am fine with my moral compass. I don’t stick my subjective nose into other personal affairs unless they need assistance. I believe strongly in the Planned Parenthood philosophy.
Click to expand...



Yes, you believe strongly in slaughtering the most innocent in society with more heartless brutality than you demand for you lunch meat. Sure, talk about that moral compass again...


----------



## Kittymom1026

LilOlLady said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
Click to expand...


This is the US and we have a Constitution that governs this country, and no matter how many times you say it, abortion is NOT a crime here.  You want to live in a country that is governed by religion, move to Brazil. It's a Catholic country that outlaws abortion. You'd fit right in there.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no we aren't and never was. The founding fathers were Deists and made sure there is separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, but also allows freedom FROM religion.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the *freedom* of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The founding fathers were Deists..."
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> No, they weren't 'deists.'
> 
> 
> 
> Let's prove it together.
> 
> 
> The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.
> 
> a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
> b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
> c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.
> 
> As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Deism and the Founding Fathers*
> As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.
> 
> Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More?
> Sure thing:
> 
> 4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> *
> 
> Let’s start with George Washington.
> 
> Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States.
> 
> Here is Washington at his first Inaugural:
> “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
> In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
> 
> 
> Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”
> 
> Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.
> 
> 
> 6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!
> 
> "*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”
> 
> 
> a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.”
> 
> Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?
> 
> Definitely, no.
> *
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *
> 
> So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”
> 
> As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.
> 
> 
> 
> These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.
> 
> It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *
> 
> 
> It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> 
> And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?
> 
> Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.
> 
> 8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.
> 
> 
> And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
> "The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.
> 
> Maybe three: lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion.
> And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God."
> Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do.
> And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can.
> Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that?
> You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
Click to expand...



Actually, the DoI has four such references.

There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.


And, as I said earlier, the Constitution has a specific reference to Jesus Christ.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.


----------



## toobfreak

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



You're right.  In cases where the mother's life is at stake is one thing, otherwise, it ISN'T your body.  You are carrying another life you are responsible for!

You're supposed to be MOTHER, not MURDERER.


----------



## Kittymom1026

Unkotare said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you lack the courage to even look at the issue honestly and directly.
Click to expand...

I AM looking at it honestly. I'm not the one spouting the religious crap here. I live in the US and abide by the laws that govern it, not some religious mumbo jumbo from a fanatic.


----------



## ph3iron

LilOlLady said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
Click to expand...


It's called Google darlin
God, the biggest mass murderer in history?
"The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.

We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.

It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults. If God really opposes abortion, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he authorize one of his trusted spokesmen—Moses, Jesus or Paul—to issue a definitive statement on the subject?

It is also noteworthy that while the bible requires the death penalty for 60 specified criminal violations, abortion is not among them. When all relevant documentation is examined, it is obvious that God does not love the unborn and he certainly does not disapprove of abortion.

Killed millions of unborn children?
Which bible ARE you reading?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was, you dope.
> 
> 
> The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.
> 
> And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
> 
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> 
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> 
> 
> Figures that you'd go to the most RW religious site to try to prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that you can't find a single error in the post.....but, like a good German.....er, Liberal.....you refuse to learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already posted an article about it.
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved the opposite....you can check what I said.....
> 
> ....and then, guess again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The opposite of what? The sabbath? Sunday is the first day, not the seventh.
> 
> View attachment 261565Reply
> www.sabbathtruth.com
> The *Sabbath* is commanded by God. Every week religious Jews observe the *Sabbath*, the Jewish holy day, and keep its laws and customs. The *Sabbath* begins at nightfall on Friday and lasts until nightfall on Saturday.Jul 15, 2009
> *BBC - Religions - Judaism: Sabbath*
Click to expand...




Have you ever considered why every collectivist doctrine.....Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism and Progressivism.....has such a palpable fear of morality and religion?


Have you ever considered how many millions of human being....not even counting the million slaughtered via abortion and infanticide......have been murdered by collectivism?


For comparison, conservatism is based on individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.



Warning....if this is the first time you have tried to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.


----------



## LilOlLady

*Diary of an Unborn Child*
*Day 1:* *fertilization:* all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.

*Day 6:*  embryo begins implantation in the uterus.

*Day 22:*  heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.

*Week 3:*  By the end of third week the child’s backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming.  The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

*Week 4:*  By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.

*Week 5:*  Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop
*Week 6:*  Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

*Week 7: * Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct.  The baby is kicking and swimming.

*Week 8:*  Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form.  By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

*Weeks 9 and 10:*  Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop.  The baby can turn his head, and frown.  The baby can hiccup.

*Weeks 10 and 11:*  The baby can “breathe” amniotic fluid and urinate.  Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning.  The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

*Week 12: * The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus.  Vocal cords are complete.  The baby can suck its thumb.

*Week 14:*  At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.

*Week 15:*  The baby has an adult’s taste buds.

*Month 4:*  Bone Marrow is now beginning to form.  The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day.  By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will weigh up to half a pound.

*Week 17:*  The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.

*Week 19:*  Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.

*Week 20:*   At 20 weeks the baby recognizes its’ mothers voice. At 20 weeks, the unborn child is capable of f*eeling pain*. This is also the earliest at which partial-birth abortion is performed.
Diary of an Unborn Child | National Right to Life


----------



## BlueGin

ph3iron said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
Click to expand...

No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.

If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
Click to expand...



Abortion is murder.

It's what we mean when we speak of ending a life.



Do you ever get beyond bumper stickers?


----------



## Unkotare

Kittymom1026 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you lack the courage to even look at the issue honestly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I AM looking at it honestly. I'm not the one spouting the religious crap here......
Click to expand...


Recognizing life is "religious crap" now? If you came upon a dead body in the street, you wouldn't be able to recognize its condition?


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am fine with my moral compass. I don’t stick my subjective nose into other personal affairs unless they need assistance. I believe strongly in the Planned Parenthood philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you believe strongly in slaughtering the most innocent in society with more heartless brutality than you demand for you lunch meat. Sure, talk about that moral compass again...
Click to expand...

I’m sure you feel content in your extremist rhetoric. Very unrealistic, subjective, and authoritarian, to say the least. You remind me of the contrary phrase “Don’t tread on me”. Is that not a conservative viewpoint?


----------



## Vandalshandle

BlueGin said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
Click to expand...


I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
Click to expand...


If you support baby murder it's obvious you're lacking morals


----------



## Hale

Moonglow said:


> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..


It's probably best not to comment when you clearly did not read Post #1.


----------



## LilOlLady

Kittymom1026 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the US and we have a* Constitution that governs this country*, and no matter how many times you say it, abortion is NOT a crime here.  You want to live in a country that is governed by religion, move to Brazil. It's a Catholic country that outlaws abortion. You'd fit right in there.
Click to expand...

Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.


----------



## Kittymom1026

PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no we aren't and never was. The founding fathers were Deists and made sure there is separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, but also allows freedom FROM religion.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the *freedom* of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The founding fathers were Deists..."
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> No, they weren't 'deists.'
> 
> 
> 
> Let's prove it together.
> 
> 
> The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.
> 
> a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
> b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
> c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.
> 
> As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Deism and the Founding Fathers*
> As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.
> 
> Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More?
> Sure thing:
> 
> 4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> *
> 
> Let’s start with George Washington.
> 
> Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States.
> 
> Here is Washington at his first Inaugural:
> “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
> In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
> 
> 
> Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”
> 
> Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.
> 
> 
> 6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!
> 
> "*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”
> 
> 
> a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.”
> 
> Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?
> 
> Definitely, no.
> *
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *
> 
> So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”
> 
> As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.
> 
> 
> 
> These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.
> 
> It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *
> 
> 
> It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> 
> And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?
> 
> Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.
> 
> 8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.
> 
> 
> And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
> "The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.
> 
> Maybe three: lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion.
> And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God."
> Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do.
> And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can.
> Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that?
> You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the DoI has four such references.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> 
> And, as I said earlier, the Constitution has a specific reference to Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Click to expand...


Where exactly does it mention specifically Jesus Christ by his name because all I could find was the word creator. Here's an article about it and this is in it..

This is not supported by the historical evidence, and the prime exhibits are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, with no explicit mention of God in the Constitution, and one mention of, as Cooper clearly points out, “…*a* god…”, in the Declaration of Independence.
It's a pretty comprehensive piece and covers about everything...

https://www.quora.com/Are-the-words-God-Jesus-or-the-Bible-in-the-U-S-Constitution


----------



## dblack

PoliticalChic said:


> Abortion is murder.



That's one opinion. But it's not the consensus of current law. You're free to argue that it should change, of course, but simply restating your opinion over and over again isn't very persuasive.


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
Click to expand...


I hope you're not kidding about that.


----------



## Kittymom1026

Unkotare said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you lack the courage to even look at the issue honestly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I AM looking at it honestly. I'm not the one spouting the religious crap here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing life is "religious crap" now? If you came upon a dead body in the street, you wouldn't be able to recognize its condition?
Click to expand...

Constantly preaching and quoting bible verses is religious crap. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who is tired of it. 
And finding a dead body on the street is not a good comparison to aborting a clump of cells. 
Where do you people get these crazy ideas from anyhow?


----------



## denmark

LilOlLady said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the US and we have a* Constitution that governs this country*, and no matter how many times you say it, abortion is NOT a crime here.  You want to live in a country that is governed by religion, move to Brazil. It's a Catholic country that outlaws abortion. You'd fit right in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
> You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
> Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.
Click to expand...

Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).


----------



## Leo123

sparky said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bad comparison, the heartbeat of an infant in the womb signifies the START of life. Your analogy tries to equate that with the END of life. That is, a fully developed human being lacking the brain activity to remain alive. Apparently a fetus in the womb can be alive with just a heartbeat and minimal brain activity. The heartbeat certainly is analogous to life in that case.
> 
> 
> 
> and you base this assumption on what leo?
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until they walk into family court, where all men are no more than a wallet w/legs...
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


The truth Sparky.  I base my statement on reality.  Show me where I’m wrong.


----------



## LilOlLady

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the US and we have a* Constitution that governs this country*, and no matter how many times you say it, abortion is NOT a crime here.  You want to live in a country that is governed by religion, move to Brazil. It's a Catholic country that outlaws abortion. You'd fit right in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
> You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
> Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
Click to expand...

Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Penelope said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is pro abortion.  Females do not get pg so they can have an abortion.  Are you on crack?? I'm serious.
> 
> Being  pro choice does not mean anyone is pro abortion.
Click to expand...

Correct.

The right to privacy is far more than reproductive autonomy – it safeguards the right of citizens to make all manner of choices and decisions concerning their private lives free from unwarranted interference from the state, such as whom to marry, sexual orientation, decisions concerning gender identity, whether to have a child or not, how one’s children will be educated, what religion one’s children will be taught, among many other issues.

It was clearly the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation to codify in the Constitution provisions prohibiting government from violating the privacy rights of citizens.


----------



## LilOlLady

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the US and we have a* Constitution that governs this country*, and no matter how many times you say it, abortion is NOT a crime here.  You want to live in a country that is governed by religion, move to Brazil. It's a Catholic country that outlaws abortion. You'd fit right in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
> You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
> Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
Click to expand...

Most miscarriages happen when the unborn baby has* fatal genetic problems. *... Other causes of miscarriage include:* Infection*. Medical conditions in the mother, such as *diabetes or thyroid disease*.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

strollingbones said:


> you cant opt out of the bibles books....the new testament does not out weight the old testament....the word of jesus does not ovver come the word of god...now does it?


Gotta love the cafeteria Christians.


----------



## denmark

LilOlLady said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the US and we have a* Constitution that governs this country*, and no matter how many times you say it, abortion is NOT a crime here.  You want to live in a country that is governed by religion, move to Brazil. It's a Catholic country that outlaws abortion. You'd fit right in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
> You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
> Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
Click to expand...

If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is pro abortion.  Females do not get pg so they can have an abortion.  Are you on crack?? I'm serious.
> 
> Being  pro choice does not mean anyone is pro abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The right to privacy is far more than reproductive autonomy – it safeguards the right of citizens to make all manner of choices and decisions concerning their private lives free from unwarranted interference from the state, such as whom to marry, sexual orientation, decisions concerning gender identity, whether to have a child or not, how one’s children will be educated, what religion one’s children will be taught, among many other issues.
Click to expand...


You're a big fat hypocrite,  C.

Shall I list all the private decisions and choices that you _want_ government to interfere with? (It's a much longer list).


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make excuses all you want but don’t lecture me about God caring about aborted babies
> He killed babies because he was having a bad day
> 
> How about the first born of Egypt?
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal opinion and religious dogma are subjective and in no manner mitigate facts of law – the fact of law that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ and that abortion is not ‘murder.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD>
Click to expand...

You can’t be serious.

And if you are serious, that’s what’s truly sad.

The United States is not a theocracy, Constitutional jurisprudence is the supreme law of the land – not ‘god’s’ law, and not the subjective, wrongheaded opinions of authoritarian theists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet* unformed,* and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them" (Psalm 139:13-16, NKJV).
> 
> *"Before I formed you in the womb I knew yo*u, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5, NIV).


Appeal to authority fallacy.

Religious dogma is subjective, devoid of both fact and legal relevance.

If your religion dictates to not have an abortion, then don’t have an abortion.

But it in no manner justifies seeking to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
Click to expand...

No one is saying murder isn’t wrong.

What is wrong is to propagate the lie that abortion is ‘murder’ – where as a fact of law it is not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
Click to expand...

This is a lie – abortion is not ‘murder.’


----------



## LilOlLady

*Abortion is not a constitutional right *according to the strict text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it.

This constitutional argument is often used by *pro-abortionists*. As former U.S. President Barack Obama once asserted, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this *fundamental constitutional right.” *Obama, once a law professor, should have known that this right doesn’t actually exist ― *the Supreme Court literally conjured it out of thin air.
*
When people claim a ‘right’ to privacy in order to cover i*llicit and sinful actions, *as in a constitutional right to abortion, justice _always_ suffers grave damage, because the *rights of God and of other persons are simply disregarded.*  Some examples:
*Partial‑Birth Abortions and Starvation Deaths.* 
*AIDS.* 
*Frozen Heads and Other Body Parts.* 

*Pro‑lifers and other pro‑family activists* must not feel guilty in the least when opposing *abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts, child pornography and other hideous sins/crimes by the extreme Left.*  After all, anti‑lifers simply use the ‘right’ to privacy as a *license to abuse ― and kill ― other human beings. This is not a constitutional right to abortion but rather a twisting of the language Constitution for ideological purposes.*


----------



## LilOlLady

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is saying murder isn’t wrong.
> 
> What is wrong is to propagate the lie that abortion is ‘murder’ – where as a fact of law it is not.
Click to expand...

Legally abortion is not murder but morally abortion is murder. We all know that the law of the land is not always right...Slavery was once law of the land. Prostitution is law of the land in Nevada. Segregation and Jim Crow and hangings were once law of the land. Once a price on the heads of Native Americans. $5 a head. In his brutal military campaigns against Indians, Andrew Jackson recommended that troops systematically *kill Indian women and children* after massacres in order to complete the exterminationSomeday this country will have to answer to the murdering of innocent defenseless unborn children.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kittymom1026 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The founding fathers were Deists..."
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> No, they weren't 'deists.'
> 
> 
> 
> Let's prove it together.
> 
> 
> The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.
> 
> a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
> b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
> c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.
> 
> As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Deism and the Founding Fathers*
> As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.
> 
> Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More?
> Sure thing:
> 
> 4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> *
> 
> Let’s start with George Washington.
> 
> Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States.
> 
> Here is Washington at his first Inaugural:
> “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
> In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
> 
> 
> Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”
> 
> Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.
> 
> 
> 6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!
> 
> "*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”
> 
> 
> a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.”
> 
> Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?
> 
> Definitely, no.
> *
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *
> 
> So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”
> 
> As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.
> 
> 
> 
> These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.
> 
> It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *
> 
> 
> It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> 
> And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?
> 
> Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.
> 
> 8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.
> 
> 
> And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
> "The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.
> 
> Maybe three: lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion.
> And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God."
> Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do.
> And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can.
> Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that?
> You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the DoI has four such references.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> 
> And, as I said earlier, the Constitution has a specific reference to Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly does it mention specifically Jesus Christ by his name because all I could find was the word creator. Here's an article about it and this is in it..
> 
> This is not supported by the historical evidence, and the prime exhibits are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, with no explicit mention of God in the Constitution, and one mention of, as Cooper clearly points out, “…*a* god…”, in the Declaration of Independence.
> It's a pretty comprehensive piece and covers about everything...
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Are-the-words-God-Jesus-or-the-Bible-in-the-U-S-Constitution
Click to expand...




The end of article seven refers to Jesus Christ.


----------



## PoliticalChic

dblack said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one opinion. But it's not the consensus of current law. You're free to argue that it should change, of course, but simply restating your opinion over and over again isn't very persuasive.
Click to expand...



So....the ending of a human life is an opinion?


You pretenders are disgusting.


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am fine with my moral compass. I don’t stick my subjective nose into other personal affairs unless they need assistance. I believe strongly in the Planned Parenthood philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you believe strongly in slaughtering the most innocent in society with more heartless brutality than you demand for you lunch meat. Sure, talk about that moral compass again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m sure you feel content in your extremist rhetoric. ....
Click to expand...



Extremist? So tell me, do you really believe that one second or one centimeter one way or another in the birth canal magically bestows or withholds humanity? Talk about extremist...


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
Click to expand...


That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?


----------



## Hale

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is saying murder isn’t wrong.
> What is wrong is to propagate the lie that abortion is ‘murder’ – where as a fact of law it is not.


Murder is murder, it is not age dependent. 
Law does not define murder, it merely enacts penalty within a civilization.  
This is your cognitive disconnect.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


Correct: my body, my choice – one’s body does not belong to the state, the state has no authority to deny citizens the right to make a choice concerning personal, private matters – including the choice as to whether to have a child or not.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Kittymom1026 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I can love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
Click to expand...



lol are you and that link that fucking stupid?????????????


----------



## Wyatt earp

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct: my body, my choice – one’s body does not belong to the state, the state has no authority to deny citizens the right to make a choice concerning personal, private matters – including the choice as to whether to have a child or not.
Click to expand...


yet you were ok with the Obama care mandate




asshole.....................


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct: my body, my choice – one’s body does not belong to the state, the state has no authority to deny citizens the right to make a choice concerning personal, private matters – including the choice as to whether to have a child or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yet you were ok with the Obama care mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asshole.....................
Click to expand...


and helmet laws


and seat belt laws


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was good with abortion in the old testament
> 
> 
> 
> The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Testament became obsolete when people realized that it was all a myth.
Click to expand...


^ Ignorant.


----------



## Unkotare

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ...... – one’s body does not belong to the state.....




Does your body belong to your neighbor?


----------



## buttercup

Kittymom1026 said:


> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.



Thank you, Captain Obvious. As was stated before, repeatedly, a law doesn't make something right, unless you think all laws are absolute truths never to be questioned.


----------



## Papageorgio

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct: my body, my choice – one’s body does not belong to the state, the state has no authority to deny citizens the right to make a choice concerning personal, private matters – including the choice as to whether to have a child or not.
Click to expand...


No personal responsibility, that seems to be your way.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was good with abortion in the old testament
> 
> 
> 
> The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Testament became obsolete when people realized that it was all a myth.
Click to expand...


5,000 plus manuscripts a myth?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Kittymom1026 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
Click to expand...



Once again killing a woman with child in her womb is double homicide in most jurisdictions and also once again men's laws fluctuate like the wind depending how many people you indoctrinate to your sick evil ways, Jesus laws never change


----------



## Wyatt earp

Vandalshandle said:


> Time to bail out. I stopped going to church in 1959. I see no reason to be subjected to sheep herding now....



you should come around Vatican II


----------



## Wyatt earp

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......about 25% of pregnancies (with unique DNA) are naturally aborted, as in miscarriages.
> You should go back to school and learn more about basic biology and nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some adults die of disease. Some die after getting hit by a bus. I guess that means you think it should be legal to attack you with biological weapons or run you over with a car if someone finds your existence inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical. Fail.
> There is a HUGE difference between adults (your reference above) and fetuses (NOT yours).
> You really do need more education on biology, especially its developmental perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
Click to expand...





*
You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - to you - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.*


----------



## buttercup

Kittymom1026 said:


> And finding a dead body on the street is not a good comparison to aborting a clump of cells.
> Where do you people get these crazy ideas from anyhow?



Oh, brother.  You're either being dishonest or ignorant, not sure which.  In the earliest stages of pregnancy,  a woman who wasn't planning a pregnancy doesn't even know she's pregnant, usually not until she's missed at least one period (sometimes two.)  So by the time she realizes she's pregnant and schedules an abortion, *we're no longer talking about a "clump of cells."  *By the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brainwaves, a face, a little body, even little arms and legs.

So stop parroting the most tired, dishonest, ignorant pro-abort talking points, you're only proving the OP correct.


----------



## buttercup

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The right to privacy is far more than reproductive autonomy –



More slick, blatantly dishonest proabort catchphrases.  Let's go through this one more time. You already _have_ "reproductive autonomy."  You have the right to reproduce.  And you have the right to NOT reproduce. *ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED. *    Therefore, if you guys were honest, you wouldn't be calling it  'reproductive rights,' you would call it what it actually is -  "killing rights."


----------



## Penelope

buttercup said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious. As was stated before, repeatedly, a law doesn't make something right, unless you think all laws are absolute truths never to be questioned.
Click to expand...


So don't have an abortion or have you already?


----------



## Penelope

buttercup said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to privacy is far more than reproductive autonomy –
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More slick, blatantly dishonest proabort catchphrases.  Let's go through this one more time. You already _have_ "reproductive autonomy."  You have the right to reproduce.  And you have the right to NOT reproduce. *ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED. *    Therefore, if you guys were honest, you wouldn't be calling it  'reproductive rights,' you would call it what it actually is -  "killing rights."
Click to expand...


Are you a vegan??


----------



## Penelope

bear513 said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were pure and simple there would no debate on the matter.
> 
> We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol are you and that link that fucking stupid?????????????
Click to expand...


Do you see the 10 or 613 commandments in the Constitution??


----------



## Penelope

PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no we aren't and never was. The founding fathers were Deists and made sure there is separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, but also allows freedom FROM religion.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the *freedom* of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The founding fathers were Deists..."
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> No, they weren't 'deists.'
> 
> 
> 
> Let's prove it together.
> 
> 
> The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.
> 
> a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
> b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
> c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.
> 
> As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Deism and the Founding Fathers*
> As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.
> 
> Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More?
> Sure thing:
> 
> 4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> *
> 
> Let’s start with George Washington.
> 
> Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States.
> 
> Here is Washington at his first Inaugural:
> “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
> In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
> 
> 
> Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”
> 
> Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.
> 
> 
> 6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!
> 
> "*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”
> 
> 
> a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.”
> 
> Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?
> 
> Definitely, no.
> *
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *
> 
> So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”
> 
> As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.
> 
> 
> 
> These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.
> 
> It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *
> 
> 
> It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> 
> And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?
> 
> Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.
> 
> 8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.
> 
> 
> And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
> "The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.
> 
> Maybe three: lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion.
> And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God."
> Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do.
> And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can.
> Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that?
> You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the DoI has four such references.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> 
> And, as I said earlier, the Constitution has a specific reference to Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Click to expand...


So the words Jesus Christ nor God is in the Constitution.  Actually its Jesus the Christ.


----------



## buttercup

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the US and we have a* Constitution that governs this country*, and no matter how many times you say it, abortion is NOT a crime here.  You want to live in a country that is governed by religion, move to Brazil. It's a Catholic country that outlaws abortion. You'd fit right in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
> You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
> Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
Click to expand...


Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The founding fathers were Deists..."
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> No, they weren't 'deists.'
> 
> 
> 
> Let's prove it together.
> 
> 
> The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.
> 
> a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
> b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
> c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.
> 
> As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Deism and the Founding Fathers*
> As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.
> 
> Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More?
> Sure thing:
> 
> 4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> *
> 
> Let’s start with George Washington.
> 
> Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States.
> 
> Here is Washington at his first Inaugural:
> “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
> In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
> 
> 
> Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”
> 
> Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.
> 
> 
> 6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!
> 
> "*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”
> 
> 
> a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.”
> 
> Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?
> 
> Definitely, no.
> *
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *
> 
> So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”
> 
> As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.
> 
> 
> 
> These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.
> 
> It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *
> 
> 
> It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> 
> And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?
> 
> Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.
> 
> 8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.
> 
> 
> And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
> "The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.
> 
> Maybe three: lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion.
> And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God."
> Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do.
> And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can.
> Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that?
> You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the DoI has four such references.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> 
> And, as I said earlier, the Constitution has a specific reference to Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the words Jesus Christ nor God is in the Constitution.  Actually its Jesus the Christ.
Click to expand...




Let's get you on the record: This section of Article seven, of the Constitution....


"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the* Year of our Lord* one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth...."



.....refers to whom?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Penelope said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit brother we are a Christian nation always was, always will be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tough shit moron. We're not a theocracy. Jesus has no standing in US government. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the US Constitution was based on the Bible...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope it wasn't...
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol are you and that link that fucking stupid?????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you see the 10 or 613 commandments in the Constitution??
Click to expand...


Uhm you cant even do 200 of them because the Romans burned the temple to the ground in 70 AD dumb ass.


Btw:


*Genesis 9:3 *
3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.


* Acts 10:15 *
 
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

* Romans 10:4*

 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes









.


----------



## dblack

PoliticalChic said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one opinion. But it's not the consensus of current law. You're free to argue that it should change, of course, but simply restating your opinion over and over again isn't very persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....the ending of a human life is an opinion?
Click to expand...


So, no. Abortion is not legally murder. It is simply your opinion that it should be.

This isn't that subtle. Are really confused on the matter? Or just posing?


----------



## buttercup

Penelope said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to privacy is far more than reproductive autonomy –
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More slick, blatantly dishonest proabort catchphrases.  Let's go through this one more time. You already _have_ "reproductive autonomy."  You have the right to reproduce.  And you have the right to NOT reproduce. *ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED. *    Therefore, if you guys were honest, you wouldn't be calling it  'reproductive rights,' you would call it what it actually is -  "killing rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a vegan??
Click to expand...


What's your point?  If you're going to say that I should value the life of an ant as much as a preborn, sorry, but as a Christian I don't agree with standard (secular) vegans on everything. I do hold a few views that they don't hold.


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one opinion. But it's not the consensus of current law. You're free to argue that it should change, of course, but simply restating your opinion over and over again isn't very persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....the ending of a human life is an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, no. Abortion is not legally murder. It is simply your opinion that it should be.
> 
> This isn't that subtle. Are really confused on the matter? Or just posing?
Click to expand...




*ALABAMA*
Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.DUMBLAWS.COM
*ALASKA*
Moose may not be viewed from an airplane.DUMBLAWS.COM
*ARIZONA*
It is illegal to promote the use of or own more than 6 dildos.IDIOTLAWS.COM
*ARKANSAS*
It’s strictly prohibited to pronounce “Arkansas” incorrectly.DUMBLAWS.COM
*CALIFORNIA*
Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.DUMBLAWS.COM
*COLORADO*
One may not mutilate a rock in a state park.DUMBLAWS.COM
*CONNECTICUT*
It's illegal for a barber to hum a tune while cutting your hair.IDIOTLAWS.COM
*DELAWARE*
Alcohol may not be served in nightclubs if dancing is occurring on the premises at the same time.DUMBLAWS.COM
*FLORIDA*
Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.DUMBLAWS.COM
*GEORGIA*
No one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket if it is Sunday.DUMBLAWS.COM
*HAWAII*
Coins are not allowed to be placed in one’s ears.DUMBLAWS.COM
*IDAHO*
Dirt may not be swept from one's house into the street.DUMBLAWS.COM
*ILLINOIS*
Those under 21 can drink legally, but they must be enrolled in a culinary program to do so.DUMBLAWS.COM
*INDIANA*
No one may catch a fish with his/her bare hands.DUMBLAWS.COM
*IOWA*
Ministers must obtain a permit to carry their liquor across state lines.DUMBLAWS.COM
*KANSAS*
Hitting a vending machine that stole your money is illegal.DUMBLAWS.COM
*KENTUCKY*
One may not dye a duckling blue and offer it for sale unless more than six are for sale at once.DUMBLAWS.COM
*LOUISIANA*
It is a $500 fine to instruct a pizza delivery man to deliver a pizza to your friend without them knowing.DUMBLAWS.COM
*MAINE*
Advertisements may not be placed in cemeteries.DUMBLAWS.COM
*MARYLAND*
Persons may not swear while on the highway.DUMBLAWS.COM
*MASSACHUSETTS*
Candy may not contain more than 1% of alcohol.DUMBLAWS.COM
*MICHIGAN*
No man may seduce and corrupt an unmarried girl, or else he risks five years in prison.DUMBLAWS.COM
*MINNESOTA*
Airplanes may not be landed in city parks.DUMBLAWS.COM
*MISSISSIPPI*
If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person will go to jail for at least one month.DUMBLAWS.COM
*MISSOURI*
One may not drink in a bar between 2:00 and 6:00 AM.DUMBLAWS.COM
*MONTANA*
One may not pretend to abuse an animal in the presence of a minor.DUMBLAWS.COM
*NEBRASKA*
Persons with an STD may not marry.DUMBLAWS.COM
*NEVADA*
Sex toys are outlawed.DUMBLAWS.COM
*NEW HAMPSHIRE*
It is illegal to collect and carry away seaweed at the beach, but only at night.DUMBLAWS.COM
*NEW JERSEY*
All motorists must honk before passing another car, bicyclist, skater, and even a skateboarder.DUMBLAWS.COM
*NEW MEXICO*
Persons may not spit on the steps of the opera house.DUMBLAWS.COM
*NEW YORK*
It is illegal to congregate in public with two or more people while each wearing a mask or any face covering which disguises your identity.DUMBLAWS.COM
*NORTH CAROLINA*
A marriage can be declared void if either of the two persons is physically impotent.DUMBLAWS.COM
*NORTH DAKOTA*
One may be jailed for wearing a hat while dancing, or even for wearing a hat to a function where dancing is taking place.DUMBLAWS.COM
*OHIO*
If one loses their exotic animal, they must notify the authorities within one hour.DUMBLAWS.COM
*OKLAHOMA*
It is illegal for the owner of a bar to allow anyone inside to pretend to have sex with an animal.DUMBLAWS.COM
*OREGON*
It is illegal to place a container filled with human fecal matter on the side of any highway.DUMBLAWS.COM
*PENNSYLVANIA*
Persons convicted of felonies may not operate Bingo games.DUMBLAWS.COM
*RHODE ISLAND*
No person may bite off another’s limbs.DUMBLAWS.COM
*SOUTH CAROLINA*
A person must be eighteen years old to play a pinball machine.DUMBLAWS.COM
*SOUTH DAKOTA*
Movies that show police officers being struck, beaten, or treated in an offensive manner are forbidden.DUMBLAWS.COM
*TENNESSEE*
Students may not hold hands while at school.DUMBLAWS.COM
*TEXAS*
Wire cutters cannot be carried in your pocket.DUMBLAWS.COM
*UTAH*
Alcohol may not be sold during an emergency.DUMBLAWS.COM
*VERMONT*
Women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.RD.COM
*VIRGINIA*
No animal may be hunted on Sunday with the exception of raccoons, which may be hunted until 2:00 AM.DUMBLAWS.COM
*WASHINGTON*
X-rays may not be used to fit shoes.DUMBLAWS.COM
*WEST VIRGINIA*
A person may not hold public office if he or she has ever participated in a duel.DUMBLAWS.COM
*WISCONSIN*
Margarine may not be substituted for butter in restaurants unless it is requested by the customer.DUMBLAWS.COM
*WYOMING*
Junk dealers may not make any business transactions with drunk persons.DUMBLAWS.COM


----------



## emilynghiem

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no SweetSue92
> 
> The problem is that legislating and regulating abortion
> through Govt is GOING TO AFFECT THE WOMEN carrying
> the pregnancy, and not affecting the MEN even if the MEN
> coerced the women to get into those situations to begin with.
> 
> That's where the protest is coming from.
> 
> Where is the outrage and commitment to stop MEN
> from abusing women for sex with no responsibility for consequences?
> 
> That's the big question that is not being asked
> and never been addressed by legislative battles focusing
> on pregnancy AFTER THE FACT when it affects WOMEN more than men.
> 
> SweetSue92
> To avoid the whole "catch-22" of not being able to protect
> the life and rights of unborn persons without interfering with
> the equal rights and freedom of women, where this process is taking place
> inside their bodies, we'd have to agree on policies to PREVENT
> unwanted pregnancy IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> We prevent unwanted pregnancy, then we prevent abortion
> and thus prevent abortion politics from pitting the beliefs
> or rights of "one side vs. another" when "equal protection
> of the laws" would require ALL SIDES' beliefs and interests to be
> represented and protected EQUALLY.
> 
> If we cannot do that, if abortion laws would either compromise
> ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, then clearly ALL ABORTION would
> have to be PREVENTED WITHOUT RELYING ON PASSING LAWS
> unless all sides can AGREE on how such laws are written or enforced.
> 
> We'd have to stick to points and policies of agreement
> that would effectively prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.
> 
> Then ALL rights and beliefs would be protected equally, by preventing
> this conflicting situation from ever coming up in the first place!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just listing common sense and railing against biology--it's like making a fist and screaming at dark clouds that spill rain. You can do it, but it's unproductive and a waste of time.
> 
> Yes, women are the ones who get pregnant. It has always been so and, I suspect, will remain so for a very, very long time.
> 
> Yes, babies desperately need that human incubator. They need it for approximately nine months. Then they don't.
> 
> The vast majority of women become pregnant of their own volition. You can cry about the "patriarchy" or whatever, but really, they can take ownership. They were not raped. They were not "coerced". They were ignorant, or stupid, or lazy. Or a mix of those three. Listen, if we want to be strong independent women, then let's be strong independent women and not sniveling little girls about our biology. Let's not cry about the fact that we can get pregnant, but actually own it, like grown women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup...you got us on that one
> 
> Women become pregnant. They are obviously ignorant, stupid or lazy. But the same conservatives who despise abortion also oppose funding for sex education, birth control and social programs to care for babies
> 
> But what happens when a woman becomes pregnant?  Most choose to keep the babies. Some are faced with a difficult decision to terminate.
> 
> Conservatives could make that decision easier.....they don’t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again what part don't you get abortion is murder pure and simple?
> 
> Men's laws fluctuate like the wind, (prohibition and the like) depending how many people you can indoctrinate in your twisted sick ways...
> 
> 
> Jesus commandments never change, only one god and love your neighbor as God loves you .I love ya but I don't have to associate with you in your evil ways..
> 
> Titus 3:9~10
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dear bear513
This is assuming that the soul of the person has already entered that body
so this constitutes a person legally with conscious free will.

However, it is not proven or disproven whether the soul can be kept from entering the body if the mother does not want the baby to be born.

Many other women I have talked with express similar experiences and belief
that the soul of the baby was not necessarily in the body
so that abortion affected the body but not the soul of that person.

In cases where the soul WAS integrated with the body,
yes, if the baby has the will to live and this is violated, then it
is the same process as murder.

If the soul wanted to enter and be born but was blocked,
that could be a form of abuse like coercing someone against their will.
This could go either way, if you believe some souls are not meant to be born
at that time even if they thought they wanted to.

And if the soul does NOT want to enter the body, as some women
report their children born later telling them they went away previously,
as if they had conscious memory of coming through before but
not being born or being miscarried or aborted, then this does
not fit the definition of murder - if the soul was not in the body
and didn't want to be but stayed out because they agreed it wasn't their time
to be born.

bear513 all this is faithbased and cannot be proven or disprove either way.

Clearly it is a SPIRITUAL process where the soul or consciousness of the
person may or may not have full control of whether to enter the body
and be born yet, or if there are spiritual reasons for not being born,
or suffering miscarriage, stillborn conditions, disease, abortion or other 
such circumstances besides healthy normal birth.

The Government cannot be in the business of regulating or dictating
someone's spiritual experience and process, or our BELIEFS about this.

Since spiritual beliefs from all sides should be treated equally,
the best most effective solution to represent ALL people of ALL beliefs
in public policy is to PREVENT abortion and unwanted pregnancy to begin with.

Again the Govt CANNOT require that everyone go through spiritual counseling
before having relations, sex, or children; but if PEOPLE agree in advance to
get counseling to prevent unwanted situations, then we can still solve this problem.

It has to come from the PEOPLE since spiritual beliefs and process are involved
that are not Govt jurisdiction or business to regulate.

If we can AGREE to respect each others rights, beliefs and consent,
we can prevent and solve these problems to keep them OUT OF GOVT in the first place.

Everyone will be satisfied and represented by agreeing to prevent
abortion and unwanted pregnancy, including rape and abuse, at 100% rate.

If it's anything less, we are going to disagree, so I'd set the bar at 100% prevention
to make sure all grievances and objections are resolved and all beliefs are protected.

If it takes time to educate all people in all districts to prevent abuse and abortion,
then there should be a timeline set on an agreed schedule and plan for reducing the rates until 100% prevention is reached. In the meantime, people who don't believe
in funding abortion or any programs tolerating sex outside of married commitment
to start families, then we need to separate taxes and agree on a schedule until
abortion and abuse is completely eradicated so there is no more conflict over policy.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one opinion. But it's not the consensus of current law. You're free to argue that it should change, of course, but simply restating your opinion over and over again isn't very persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....the ending of a human life is an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, no. Abortion is not legally murder. It is simply your opinion that it should be.
> 
> This isn't that subtle. Are really confused on the matter? Or just posing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ALABAMA*
> Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *ALASKA*
> Moose may not be viewed from an airplane.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *ARIZONA*
> It is illegal to promote the use of or own more than 6 dildos.IDIOTLAWS.COM
> *ARKANSAS*
> It’s strictly prohibited to pronounce “Arkansas” incorrectly.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *CALIFORNIA*
> Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *COLORADO*
> One may not mutilate a rock in a state park.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *CONNECTICUT*
> It's illegal for a barber to hum a tune while cutting your hair.IDIOTLAWS.COM
> *DELAWARE*
> Alcohol may not be served in nightclubs if dancing is occurring on the premises at the same time.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *FLORIDA*
> Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *GEORGIA*
> No one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket if it is Sunday.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *HAWAII*
> Coins are not allowed to be placed in one’s ears.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *IDAHO*
> Dirt may not be swept from one's house into the street.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *ILLINOIS*
> Those under 21 can drink legally, but they must be enrolled in a culinary program to do so.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *INDIANA*
> No one may catch a fish with his/her bare hands.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *IOWA*
> Ministers must obtain a permit to carry their liquor across state lines.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *KANSAS*
> Hitting a vending machine that stole your money is illegal.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *KENTUCKY*
> One may not dye a duckling blue and offer it for sale unless more than six are for sale at once.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *LOUISIANA*
> It is a $500 fine to instruct a pizza delivery man to deliver a pizza to your friend without them knowing.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *MAINE*
> Advertisements may not be placed in cemeteries.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *MARYLAND*
> Persons may not swear while on the highway.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *MASSACHUSETTS*
> Candy may not contain more than 1% of alcohol.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *MICHIGAN*
> No man may seduce and corrupt an unmarried girl, or else he risks five years in prison.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *MINNESOTA*
> Airplanes may not be landed in city parks.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *MISSISSIPPI*
> If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person will go to jail for at least one month.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *MISSOURI*
> One may not drink in a bar between 2:00 and 6:00 AM.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *MONTANA*
> One may not pretend to abuse an animal in the presence of a minor.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *NEBRASKA*
> Persons with an STD may not marry.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *NEVADA*
> Sex toys are outlawed.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *NEW HAMPSHIRE*
> It is illegal to collect and carry away seaweed at the beach, but only at night.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *NEW JERSEY*
> All motorists must honk before passing another car, bicyclist, skater, and even a skateboarder.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *NEW MEXICO*
> Persons may not spit on the steps of the opera house.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *NEW YORK*
> It is illegal to congregate in public with two or more people while each wearing a mask or any face covering which disguises your identity.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *NORTH CAROLINA*
> A marriage can be declared void if either of the two persons is physically impotent.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *NORTH DAKOTA*
> One may be jailed for wearing a hat while dancing, or even for wearing a hat to a function where dancing is taking place.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *OHIO*
> If one loses their exotic animal, they must notify the authorities within one hour.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *OKLAHOMA*
> It is illegal for the owner of a bar to allow anyone inside to pretend to have sex with an animal.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *OREGON*
> It is illegal to place a container filled with human fecal matter on the side of any highway.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *PENNSYLVANIA*
> Persons convicted of felonies may not operate Bingo games.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *RHODE ISLAND*
> No person may bite off another’s limbs.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *SOUTH CAROLINA*
> A person must be eighteen years old to play a pinball machine.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *SOUTH DAKOTA*
> Movies that show police officers being struck, beaten, or treated in an offensive manner are forbidden.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *TENNESSEE*
> Students may not hold hands while at school.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *TEXAS*
> Wire cutters cannot be carried in your pocket.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *UTAH*
> Alcohol may not be sold during an emergency.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *VERMONT*
> Women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.RD.COM
> *VIRGINIA*
> No animal may be hunted on Sunday with the exception of raccoons, which may be hunted until 2:00 AM.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *WASHINGTON*
> X-rays may not be used to fit shoes.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *WEST VIRGINIA*
> A person may not hold public office if he or she has ever participated in a duel.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *WISCONSIN*
> Margarine may not be substituted for butter in restaurants unless it is requested by the customer.DUMBLAWS.COM
> *WYOMING*
> Junk dealers may not make any business transactions with drunk persons.DUMBLAWS.COM
Click to expand...




Once again Mans laws fluctuate like the wind just depending how many people you indoctrinate into your evil ways, But Jesus laws remain the same......










.


----------



## PoliticalChic

dblack said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one opinion. But it's not the consensus of current law. You're free to argue that it should change, of course, but simply restating your opinion over and over again isn't very persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....the ending of a human life is an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, no. Abortion is not legally murder. It is simply your opinion that it should be.
> 
> This isn't that subtle. Are really confused on the matter? Or just posing?
Click to expand...



Actually, dope, it not being murder is the opinion of unelected judges.

Science knows it is murder.

Nazi Germany had the same sorts of 'opinions' backed by the same sorts of judges.


Every reader recognizes the sort of scum that you are.

Live with it.


----------



## BlueGin

ph3iron said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called Google darlin
> God, the biggest mass murderer in history?
> "The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.
> 
> We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.
> 
> It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults. If God really opposes abortion, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he authorize one of his trusted spokesmen—Moses, Jesus or Paul—to issue a definitive statement on the subject?
> 
> It is also noteworthy that while the bible requires the death penalty for 60 specified criminal violations, abortion is not among them. When all relevant documentation is examined, it is obvious that God does not love the unborn and he certainly does not disapprove of abortion.
> 
> Killed millions of unborn children?
> Which bible ARE you reading?
Click to expand...

Like the Passover. As it pertains to Sodom and Gomorrah ...God sent two angels to find at least 10 righteous men ...if this could be done he would save the city. The only righteous man they found was Lot...so they told him to take his family and flee. Another case of “free will”. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah chose their own path( and fate).


----------



## beagle9

ph3iron said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called Google darlin
> God, the biggest mass murderer in history?
> "The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.
> 
> We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.
> 
> It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults. If God really opposes abortion, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he authorize one of his trusted spokesmen—Moses, Jesus or Paul—to issue a definitive statement on the subject?
> 
> It is also noteworthy that while the bible requires the death penalty for 60 specified criminal violations, abortion is not among them. When all relevant documentation is examined, it is obvious that God does not love the unborn and he certainly does not disapprove of abortion.
> Killed millions of unborn children?
> Which bible ARE you reading?
Click to expand...

No where will you hide from his judgement. You can hide in the mountains, and they will fall down upon you. You can hide in space, and the meteor's will shower your position, otherwise you will have no where you can hide from him nor from his judgement, so be ready for it, because it shall come.

Your blasphemy is noted.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called Google darlin
> God, the biggest mass murderer in history?
> "The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.
> 
> We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.
> 
> It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults. If God really opposes abortion, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he authorize one of his trusted spokesmen—Moses, Jesus or Paul—to issue a definitive statement on the subject?
> 
> It is also noteworthy that while the bible requires the death penalty for 60 specified criminal violations, abortion is not among them. When all relevant documentation is examined, it is obvious that God does not love the unborn and he certainly does not disapprove of abortion.
> Killed millions of unborn children?
> Which bible ARE you reading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No where will you hide from his judgement. You can hide in the mountains, and they will fall down upon you. You can hide in space, and the meteor's will shower your position, otherwise you will have no where you can hide from him nor from his judgement, so be ready for it, because it shall come.
Click to expand...


Foresooth!



> Your blasphemy is noted.



Don't forget mine! I never pass up an opportunity to blaspheme.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

beagle9 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called Google darlin
> God, the biggest mass murderer in history?
> "The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.
> 
> We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.
> 
> It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults. If God really opposes abortion, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he authorize one of his trusted spokesmen—Moses, Jesus or Paul—to issue a definitive statement on the subject?
> 
> It is also noteworthy that while the bible requires the death penalty for 60 specified criminal violations, abortion is not among them. When all relevant documentation is examined, it is obvious that God does not love the unborn and he certainly does not disapprove of abortion.
> Killed millions of unborn children?
> Which bible ARE you reading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No where will you hide from his judgement. You can hide in the mountains, and they will fall down upon you. You can hide in space, and the meteor's will shower your position, otherwise you will have no where you can hide from him nor from his judgement, so be ready for it, because it shall come.
> 
> Your blasphemy is noted.
Click to expand...


You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist


----------



## captkaos

SweetSue92 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
Click to expand...



He ate all the "BLUE FOOD" made him really funny! A devout leftist scumbag but Still Pretty funny, I think he was lucky ! His mom was Pro life!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

captkaos said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He ate all the "BLUE FOOD" made him really funny! A devout leftist scumbag but Still Pretty funny, I think he was lucky ! His mom was Pro life!
Click to expand...


He's probably a hit in hell


----------



## dblack

SassyIrishLass said:


> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist



No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?


----------



## Unkotare

Kittymom1026 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you lack the courage to even look at the issue honestly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I AM looking at it honestly. I'm not the one spouting the religious crap here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing life is "religious crap" now? If you came upon a dead body in the street, you wouldn't be able to recognize its condition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constantly preaching and quoting bible verses is religious crap. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who is tired of it.
> And finding a dead body on the street is not a good comparison to aborting a clump of cells.
> Where do you people get these crazy ideas from anyhow?
Click to expand...




Answer the question. Or do your religious beliefs forbid answering simple questions?


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
Click to expand...



From Forbes no less.............................

Is The Biblical Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah Based On A Real-Life Impact Event?



*Is The Biblical Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah Based On A Real-Life Impact Event?*




Tall el-Hammam is the largest archaeological site in the Jordan valley. Discovered during quarrying operations for gravel, the site has been excavated as a joint project of the Trinity Southwest University and the Department of Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan since 2005.

The region was occupied by humans for at least 2,500 years until around 1,700 BCE, when its farming settlements and cities were suddenly abandoned and people did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years. Tall el-Hammam was apparently destroyed, as the remains of mud-brick walls suggest. Pieces of pottery recovered and dated to the same time of the destruction of the city show evidence of intense heat. The outer layers of the vessels and other objects made from clay partially melted, forming a glassy coat.

At the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, the researchers from Trinity Southwest University presented these findings, including a possible explanation. The researchers found zircon crystals in the glassy layer. Zircon is a mineral that can form under extremely high temperatures and pressure, as experienced during the impact of a celestial body on Earth. The researchers found also tiny glass beads on the site. Such spherules are known from other impact sites both on Earth and the Moon.





The spherules, they suggest, were created when an asteroid impact vaporized the ground and small droplets of molten rock fall back to Earth. This explanation of the destruction of  Tall el-Hammam by an impact poses an intriguing question, was the destruction of the mythological cities Sodom and Gomorrah, as described in the Bible by fire and brimstone, based on a real-life event? The identification of Tall el-Hammam as the mythological sites of Sodom and Gomorrah is based on the interpretation of some passages in the Bible, describing the land of Sodom as located in the fertile Jordan River plain in the southern region of the land of Canaan.


----------



## LilOlLady

Unkotare said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you lack the courage to even look at the issue honestly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I AM looking at it honestly. I'm not the one spouting the religious crap here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing life is "religious crap" now? If you came upon a dead body in the street, you wouldn't be able to recognize its condition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constantly preaching and quoting bible verses is religious crap. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who is tired of it.
> And finding a dead body on the street is not a good comparison to aborting a clump of cells.
> Where do you people get these crazy ideas from anyhow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question. Or do your religious beliefs forbid answering simple questions?
Click to expand...

A clump of cells? 
*Day 1:* *fertilization:* all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.

*Day 6:*  embryo begins implantation in the uterus.

*Day 22:* * heart begins to beat* with the* child’s own blood*, often a different type than the mothers’.

*Week 3:*  By the end of third week the child’s *backbone spinal colum*n and *nervous system* are forming.  The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

*Week 4:*  By the end of *week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.*

*Week 5:*  Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.





Unborn baby at approximately 7 weeks after conception.

*Week 6:* * Brain waves* are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

*Week 7: * E*yelids, and toes form, nose distinct.  The baby is kicking and swimming.*

*Week 8:* *Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form.  By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.
Diary of an Unborn Child | National Right to Life*


----------



## Wyatt earp

SassyIrishLass said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called Google darlin
> God, the biggest mass murderer in history?
> "The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.
> 
> We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.
> 
> It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults. If God really opposes abortion, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he authorize one of his trusted spokesmen—Moses, Jesus or Paul—to issue a definitive statement on the subject?
> 
> It is also noteworthy that while the bible requires the death penalty for 60 specified criminal violations, abortion is not among them. When all relevant documentation is examined, it is obvious that God does not love the unborn and he certainly does not disapprove of abortion.
> Killed millions of unborn children?
> Which bible ARE you reading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No where will you hide from his judgement. You can hide in the mountains, and they will fall down upon you. You can hide in space, and the meteor's will shower your position, otherwise you will have no where you can hide from him nor from his judgement, so be ready for it, because it shall come.
> 
> Your blasphemy is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
Click to expand...


But it is so fun to fuck with them 



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Ants are extremely social creatures and their ability to survive depends on their community in a very similar way to humans,"* said Dr. Reinberg, who is also a member of the NYU Cancer Institute. "Whether they are workers, soldiers or queens, ants seem to be a perfect fit to study whether epigenetics influences behavior and aging."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genomes of two ant species sequenced: Clues to their extraordinary social behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you ever killed an ant?? If you eat meat, mushrooms or fish or even an egg then you ok killing.  If you kill an ant, a fly, or even a worm, then you are a killer or murderer, see that takes premeditation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. Man is the only creature or creation of God which has the *ability to be saved *if he will turn to the Lord Jesus. Animals do not have the moral conscience which tells them they are sinners in need of forgiveness
> Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:26-27). Therefore, man is triune in nature–he possesses *spirit, soul *and body. He is a trichotomous being. On the other hand, animals possess body and soul, but not spirit. This would make them dichotomous beings.
> 
> Being dichotomous in nature, an animal would have n*o sense of right or wrong–*no conscience. Therefore, even though he loves his master, and is loved by his master, and even though he may learn to “obey” his master, he would not be held accountable by God for his actions. The Lord gave man “dominion” over all animal life (Genesis 1:26-28).
> 
> However, the Lord made provision for the care of animals (Genesis 9:9-10; Psalm 36:6-1 Deuteronomy 25:4; Psalm 104). Even though animals are without a soul and we do have “dominion” over them, this doesn’t mean we should ever be intentionally abusive to anima
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this board is made up of many who are not Christian, don't you? So your referring to Jesus and being saved doesn't interest them in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is saying murder isn’t wrong.
> 
> What is wrong is to propagate the lie that abortion is ‘murder’ – where as a fact of law it is not.
Click to expand...


It is amazing it is legal to declaw a cat in this country, most of the rest of the world thinks not...............


----------



## LilOlLady

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
Click to expand...

Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).


----------



## buttercup

The prolife position is strong on its own, there is actually no need to bring up God or the bible (and as someone else mentioned, it's usually pointless, considering who we're dealing with.)

So I'm going to post some things especially for the atheist proaborts...


----------



## buttercup

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL and one of the biggest abortionists of all time:


----------



## BlueGin

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
Click to expand...

Why do liberals think their looney ,irrational,based on made up BS beliefs  matter to anyone else?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
Click to expand...


Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.


----------



## Vandalshandle

bear513 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was good with abortion in the old testament
> 
> 
> 
> The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Testament became obsolete when people realized that it was all a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5,000 plus manuscripts a myth?
Click to expand...



I suspect that the Muslim world, which is larger than the Christian world, would agree with me, completely. Then, you and I can agree that all of their manuscripts are myth.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> 
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
Click to expand...



No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was good with abortion in the old testament
> 
> 
> 
> The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Testament became obsolete when people realized that it was all a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5,000 plus manuscripts a myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Muslim world, which is larger than the Christian world....
Click to expand...




Wrong.


----------



## dblack

BlueGin said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do liberals think their looney ,irrational,based on made up BS beliefs  matter to anyone else?
Click to expand...


I dunno. It's the same basic hubris though, that's for sure.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
Click to expand...


Why do they have to be so selfish? Don't that have any concern for the greater good?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Vandalshandle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was good with abortion in the old testament
> 
> 
> 
> The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Testament became obsolete when people realized that it was all a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5,000 plus manuscripts a myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that the Muslim world, which is larger than the Christian world, would agree with me, completely. Then, you and I can agree that all of their manuscripts are myth.
Click to expand...



1. Wrong by a long shot








2. The Quran mentions

*Biblical and Quranic narratives - Wikipedia*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Quranic_narrative The Quran, the central religious text of Islam, contains references to more than fifty people and ..... The Quran mentions that Abraham left his wife and Ishmael (as an infant) in the land where present-day Mecca is, while he left to what was ...
‎Torah narratives · ‎Abraham's Journeys in ... · ‎Later Hebrew Bible ... · ‎Haman






* Jesus, *

Concern over the use of _‘Isa_ [EE-sah] for Jesus when sharing the gospel with Muslims pops up now and again. And though it may be well-intentioned, it is ultimately off base.

The Qur’an mentions Jesus of Nazareth in numerous places. Muslims call him ‘Isa. Every one of the 1.8 billion (and growing) followers of Islam is required to believe in ‘Isa to be considered Muslim. Astoundingly, it’s an Islamic article of faith to believe that Jesus, or ‘Isa, was a prophet of Islam.

With my own Muslim friends, I guide conversations toward three aspects of the way the Qur’an talks about ‘Isa: ‘Isa as the virgin-born Messiah, ‘Isa as a prophet, and ‘Isa as the returning judge. Using the Qur’an can help establish a common starting point, and it opens the door for honest questions about what the person has heard about ‘Isa. It also allows me to then highlight the sharp contrast between the hope-filled message of Christ and the works-based righteousness of Islam.



*Virgin Mary, *



*Mary* (Arabic: مريم‎, romanized: Maryam), the *mother* of Jesus (Isa), holds a singularly exalted place in Islam as the only woman named in the *Quran*, which refers to her seventy times and explicitly identifies her as the greatest of all women, stating, with reference to the angelic saluation during the annunciation, "O ...
*Mary in Islam - Wikipedia*







*the bible doesn't mention Muhammad *








.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was good with abortion in the old testament
> 
> 
> 
> The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Testament became obsolete when people realized that it was all a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5,000 plus manuscripts a myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that the Muslim world, which is larger than the Christian world, would agree with me, completely. Then, you and I can agree that all of their manuscripts are myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Wrong by a long shot
> 
> 
> View attachment 261681
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Quran mentions
> 
> *Biblical and Quranic narratives - Wikipedia*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Quranic_narrative The Quran, the central religious text of Islam, contains references to more than fifty people and ..... The Quran mentions that Abraham left his wife and Ishmael (as an infant) in the land where present-day Mecca is, while he left to what was ...
> ‎Torah narratives · ‎Abraham's Journeys in ... · ‎Later Hebrew Bible ... · ‎Haman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Jesus, *
> 
> Concern over the use of _‘Isa_ [EE-sah] for Jesus when sharing the gospel with Muslims pops up now and again. And though it may be well-intentioned, it is ultimately off base.
> 
> The Qur’an mentions Jesus of Nazareth in numerous places. Muslims call him ‘Isa. Every one of the 1.8 billion (and growing) followers of Islam is required to believe in ‘Isa to be considered Muslim. Astoundingly, it’s an Islamic article of faith to believe that Jesus, or ‘Isa, was a prophet of Islam.
> 
> With my own Muslim friends, I guide conversations toward three aspects of the way the Qur’an talks about ‘Isa: ‘Isa as the virgin-born Messiah, ‘Isa as a prophet, and ‘Isa as the returning judge. Using the Qur’an can help establish a common starting point, and it opens the door for honest questions about what the person has heard about ‘Isa. It also allows me to then highlight the sharp contrast between the hope-filled message of Christ and the works-based righteousness of Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> *Virgin Mary, *
> 
> 
> 
> *Mary* (Arabic: مريم‎, romanized: Maryam), the *mother* of Jesus (Isa), holds a singularly exalted place in Islam as the only woman named in the *Quran*, which refers to her seventy times and explicitly identifies her as the greatest of all women, stating, with reference to the angelic saluation during the annunciation, "O ...
> *Mary in Islam - Wikipedia*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the bible doesn't mention the Quran *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



and besides educate yourself.......... You ignorant 








Islam is the second largest religion in the world after Christianity, with about 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide.* Although its roots go back further, scholars typically date the creation of Islam to the 7th century, making it the youngest of the major world religions*. Islam started in Mecca, in modern-day Saudi Arabia, during the time of the prophet Muhammad’s life. Today, the faith is spreading rapidly throughout the world.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
Click to expand...


No one cares what they do to THEIR bodies.  It's kind of creepy, imo, that you keep bringing them up in the context of abortion, though.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
Click to expand...



You and they have no choice in the matter as long as you live in my country. My fellow citizens and I, men and women, have established lots of laws about what you can and cannot do with your bodies and to the bodies of others. If you don't like that, there is a spaceship leaving in a few hours.


----------



## Vandalshandle

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Testament became obsolete when people realized that it was all a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5,000 plus manuscripts a myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that the Muslim world, which is larger than the Christian world, would agree with me, completely. Then, you and I can agree that all of their manuscripts are myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Wrong by a long shot
> 
> 
> View attachment 261681
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Quran mentions
> 
> *Biblical and Quranic narratives - Wikipedia*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Quranic_narrative The Quran, the central religious text of Islam, contains references to more than fifty people and ..... The Quran mentions that Abraham left his wife and Ishmael (as an infant) in the land where present-day Mecca is, while he left to what was ...
> ‎Torah narratives · ‎Abraham's Journeys in ... · ‎Later Hebrew Bible ... · ‎Haman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Jesus, *
> 
> Concern over the use of _‘Isa_ [EE-sah] for Jesus when sharing the gospel with Muslims pops up now and again. And though it may be well-intentioned, it is ultimately off base.
> 
> The Qur’an mentions Jesus of Nazareth in numerous places. Muslims call him ‘Isa. Every one of the 1.8 billion (and growing) followers of Islam is required to believe in ‘Isa to be considered Muslim. Astoundingly, it’s an Islamic article of faith to believe that Jesus, or ‘Isa, was a prophet of Islam.
> 
> With my own Muslim friends, I guide conversations toward three aspects of the way the Qur’an talks about ‘Isa: ‘Isa as the virgin-born Messiah, ‘Isa as a prophet, and ‘Isa as the returning judge. Using the Qur’an can help establish a common starting point, and it opens the door for honest questions about what the person has heard about ‘Isa. It also allows me to then highlight the sharp contrast between the hope-filled message of Christ and the works-based righteousness of Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> *Virgin Mary, *
> 
> 
> 
> *Mary* (Arabic: مريم‎, romanized: Maryam), the *mother* of Jesus (Isa), holds a singularly exalted place in Islam as the only woman named in the *Quran*, which refers to her seventy times and explicitly identifies her as the greatest of all women, stating, with reference to the angelic saluation during the annunciation, "O ...
> *Mary in Islam - Wikipedia*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the bible doesn't mention the Quran *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and besides educate yourself.......... You ignorant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is the second largest religion in the world after Christianity, with about 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide.* Although its roots go back further, scholars typically date the creation of Islam to the 7th century, making it the youngest of the major world religions*. Islam started in Mecca, in modern-day Saudi Arabia, during the time of the prophet Muhammad’s life. Today, the faith is spreading rapidly throughout the world.
Click to expand...


Bear, you really need to get over it. I have no interest in your imaginary sky fairy, at all.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and they have no choice in the matter as long as you live in my country. My fellow citizens and I, men and women, have established lots of laws about what you can and cannot do with your bodies and to the bodies of others. If you don't like that, there is a spaceship leaving in a few hours.
Click to expand...



Ok, I agree. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal, have a nice trip!


----------



## Wyatt earp

Vandalshandle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Testament became obsolete when people realized that it was all a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5,000 plus manuscripts a myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that the Muslim world, which is larger than the Christian world, would agree with me, completely. Then, you and I can agree that all of their manuscripts are myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Wrong by a long shot
> 
> 
> View attachment 261681
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Quran mentions
> 
> *Biblical and Quranic narratives - Wikipedia*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Quranic_narrative The Quran, the central religious text of Islam, contains references to more than fifty people and ..... The Quran mentions that Abraham left his wife and Ishmael (as an infant) in the land where present-day Mecca is, while he left to what was ...
> ‎Torah narratives · ‎Abraham's Journeys in ... · ‎Later Hebrew Bible ... · ‎Haman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Jesus, *
> 
> Concern over the use of _‘Isa_ [EE-sah] for Jesus when sharing the gospel with Muslims pops up now and again. And though it may be well-intentioned, it is ultimately off base.
> 
> The Qur’an mentions Jesus of Nazareth in numerous places. Muslims call him ‘Isa. Every one of the 1.8 billion (and growing) followers of Islam is required to believe in ‘Isa to be considered Muslim. Astoundingly, it’s an Islamic article of faith to believe that Jesus, or ‘Isa, was a prophet of Islam.
> 
> With my own Muslim friends, I guide conversations toward three aspects of the way the Qur’an talks about ‘Isa: ‘Isa as the virgin-born Messiah, ‘Isa as a prophet, and ‘Isa as the returning judge. Using the Qur’an can help establish a common starting point, and it opens the door for honest questions about what the person has heard about ‘Isa. It also allows me to then highlight the sharp contrast between the hope-filled message of Christ and the works-based righteousness of Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> *Virgin Mary, *
> 
> 
> 
> *Mary* (Arabic: مريم‎, romanized: Maryam), the *mother* of Jesus (Isa), holds a singularly exalted place in Islam as the only woman named in the *Quran*, which refers to her seventy times and explicitly identifies her as the greatest of all women, stating, with reference to the angelic saluation during the annunciation, "O ...
> *Mary in Islam - Wikipedia*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the bible doesn't mention the Quran *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and besides educate yourself.......... You ignorant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is the second largest religion in the world after Christianity, with about 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide.* Although its roots go back further, scholars typically date the creation of Islam to the 7th century, making it the youngest of the major world religions*. Islam started in Mecca, in modern-day Saudi Arabia, during the time of the prophet Muhammad’s life. Today, the faith is spreading rapidly throughout the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bear, you really need to get over it. I have no interest in your imaginary sky fairy, at all.
Click to expand...


and that has what to do with your ignorance?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and they have no choice in the matter as long as you live in my country. My fellow citizens and I, men and women, have established lots of laws about what you can and cannot do with your bodies and to the bodies of others. If you don't like that, there is a spaceship leaving in a few hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I agree. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal, have a nice trip!
Click to expand...



That wasn't the ruling ignorant one.


.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and they have no choice in the matter as long as you live in my country. My fellow citizens and I, men and women, have established lots of laws about what you can and cannot do with your bodies and to the bodies of others. If you don't like that, there is a spaceship leaving in a few hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I agree. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal, have a nice trip!
Click to expand...



And if any of these recent laws are upheld you'll admit they are the rightful law of the land, right?


----------



## Vandalshandle

bear513 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and they have no choice in the matter as long as you live in my country. My fellow citizens and I, men and women, have established lots of laws about what you can and cannot do with your bodies and to the bodies of others. If you don't like that, there is a spaceship leaving in a few hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I agree. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal, have a nice trip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the ruling ignorant one.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Oh, my! I could have sworn that Roe VS. Wade legalized abortion! Please fill me in with your alternative facts!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and they have no choice in the matter as long as you live in my country. My fellow citizens and I, men and women, have established lots of laws about what you can and cannot do with your bodies and to the bodies of others. If you don't like that, there is a spaceship leaving in a few hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I agree. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal, have a nice trip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if any of these recent laws are upheld you'll admit they are the rightful law of the land, right?
Click to expand...


Yes, I will. Then, if my daughter wants an abortion, I will take her to a gynecologist to have a D & C, instead, just like  people did in the 1960's.


----------



## Hale

Vandalshandle said:


> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.


All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.

Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.


----------



## The Purge




----------



## SweetSue92

Kittymom1026 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you lack the courage to even look at the issue honestly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I AM looking at it honestly. I'm not the one spouting the religious crap here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing life is "religious crap" now? If you came upon a dead body in the street, you wouldn't be able to recognize its condition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constantly preaching and quoting bible verses is religious crap. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who is tired of it.
> And finding a dead body on the street is not a good comparison to aborting a clump of cells.
> Where do you people get these crazy ideas from anyhow?
Click to expand...


The 70s called....it wants its "clump of cells" talking point back


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

MaryL said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> George Carlin  was a rich white male millionaire. He made his fortune from  mocking middleclass bourgeoisie  whites, for Christ sake.  That paradigm is dead now. Now we have a  huge underclass  living in fucking tents by the side of the road as  of you weepy eyed liberal ignoramuses drive by, unaffected. But the plight of the poor poor Mexican illegal aliens, oh, compassion city! What the fuck? Abortion is infanticide by  other name. And quoting a  dead  wealthy  white male comedian about abortion isn't exactly a great example to legitimize anything, anyway. Is it?
Click to expand...


The funny thing about this Carlin quote that he and pro-choice people never realize is that the obverse is also true: Liberals will do anything for the born but before that, they don’t want to know about you, they don’t want to hear from you. 

Carlin was good for a few chuckles but I didn’t find him particularly funny. His monologues were nothing more than political and social rants interspersed with occasional sarcasm.


----------



## sparky

Carlin is spot on in where one's _rights _end, and one's _obligations_ begin

Yet that simple concept rambles thru 57 pages of angst,anger,diversion & denial

~S~


----------



## Penelope

LilOlLady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
Click to expand...


That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions. 

Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Penelope said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
Click to expand...


Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up


----------



## Penelope

SassyIrishLass said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
Click to expand...


Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher Institute researchers Rachel Jones and Jenna Jerman, just published in the _American Journal of Public Health_. By age 20, 4.6% of women will have had an abortion, and 19% will have done so by age 30.
Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S. Women, Despite Dramatic Declines in Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------
It's foolish to believe 25% of all females in the US do not identify as Christian, I just gave an example of Abby Johnson, and I'm sure there are many like her.

We need to keep up PP and have title X available for all.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Vandalshandle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and they have no choice in the matter as long as you live in my country. My fellow citizens and I, men and women, have established lots of laws about what you can and cannot do with your bodies and to the bodies of others. If you don't like that, there is a spaceship leaving in a few hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I agree. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal, have a nice trip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the ruling ignorant one.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, my! I could have sworn that Roe VS. Wade legalized abortion! Please fill me in with your alternative facts!
Click to expand...


14th amendment right to privacy, youre the one indoctrinated on alternative facts brother..



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Penelope said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher Institute researchers Rachel Jones and Jenna Jerman, just published in the _American Journal of Public Health_. By age 20, 4.6% of women will have had an abortion, and 19% will have done so by age 30.
> Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S. Women, Despite Dramatic Declines in Rates
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's foolish to believe 25% of all females in the US do not identify as Christian, I just gave an example of Abby Johnson, and I'm sure there are many like her.
> 
> We need to keep up PP and have title X available for all.
Click to expand...


James 1:22

Do not merely read the word and decieve yourself, do what it says...




.


----------



## Penelope

bear513 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher Institute researchers Rachel Jones and Jenna Jerman, just published in the _American Journal of Public Health_. By age 20, 4.6% of women will have had an abortion, and 19% will have done so by age 30.
> Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S. Women, Despite Dramatic Declines in Rates
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's foolish to believe 25% of all females in the US do not identify as Christian, I just gave an example of Abby Johnson, and I'm sure there are many like her.
> 
> We need to keep up PP and have title X available for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James 1:22
> 
> Do not merely read the word and decieve yourself, do what it says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Penelope

Where does it say in the Bible that thou shall not have an abortion and where does it say abortion is murder?


----------



## dblack

Penelope said:


> Where does it say in the Bible that thou shall not have an abortion and where does it say abortion is murder?



Why does it matter?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Penelope said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher Institute researchers Rachel Jones and Jenna Jerman, just published in the _American Journal of Public Health_. By age 20, 4.6% of women will have had an abortion, and 19% will have done so by age 30.
> Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S. Women, Despite Dramatic Declines in Rates
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's foolish to believe 25% of all females in the US do not identify as Christian, I just gave an example of Abby Johnson, and I'm sure there are many like her.
> 
> We need to keep up PP and have title X available for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James 1:22
> 
> Do not merely read the word and decieve yourself, do what it says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Most so called Christian's don't read the Bible niether do their pastors , I know I go to 4 different denominations on Sundays


----------



## Penelope

bear513 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher Institute researchers Rachel Jones and Jenna Jerman, just published in the _American Journal of Public Health_. By age 20, 4.6% of women will have had an abortion, and 19% will have done so by age 30.
> Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S. Women, Despite Dramatic Declines in Rates
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's foolish to believe 25% of all females in the US do not identify as Christian, I just gave an example of Abby Johnson, and I'm sure there are many like her.
> 
> We need to keep up PP and have title X available for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James 1:22
> 
> Do not merely read the word and decieve yourself, do what it says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most so called Christian's don't read the Bible niether do their pastors , I know I go to 4 different denominations on Sundays
Click to expand...


So in the bible there is no such word about  abortion.    You just quoted me words from James, a book in the bible.

4 different denomination you say, yes protestants live for the bible, that is all they have.


----------



## Penelope

dblack said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say in the Bible that thou shall not have an abortion and where does it say abortion is murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter?
Click to expand...

I'm responding to Bear513 who quoted the bible.


----------



## dblack

Penelope said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say in the Bible that thou shall not have an abortion and where does it say abortion is murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm responding to Bear513 who quoted the bible.
Click to expand...


I got that. But I'm just wondering why we're supposed to care about Bible quotes when it comes to legislation?

These jackasses want a theocracy.


----------



## Death Angel

dblack said:


> I got that. But I'm just wondering why we're supposed to care about Bible quotes when it comes to legislation?


How many damn times does the left quote Scripture here (out of context) to try to influence the "right" on this board?


----------



## Death Angel

Penelope said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher Institute researchers Rachel Jones and Jenna Jerman, just published in the _American Journal of Public Health_. By age 20, 4.6% of women will have had an abortion, and 19% will have done so by age 30.
> Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S. Women, Despite Dramatic Declines in Rates
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's foolish to believe 25% of all females in the US do not identify as Christian, I just gave an example of Abby Johnson, and I'm sure there are many like her.
> 
> We need to keep up PP and have title X available for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James 1:22
> 
> Do not merely read the word and decieve yourself, do what it says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most so called Christian's don't read the Bible niether do their pastors , I know I go to 4 different denominations on Sundays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in the bible there is no such word about  abortion.    You just quoted me words from James, a book in the bible.
> 
> 4 different denomination you say, yes protestants live for the bible, that is all they have.
Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't mention cyanide either, but consuming it is still a very bad thing.


----------



## Death Angel

Penelope said:


> Where does it say in the Bible that thou shall not have an abortion and where does it say abortion is murder?


It SAYS taking an innocent human life is evil.
Science proves it is an innocent human life.
The Bible says, God is intimately involved in "knitting together" that innocent human life.

Now just accept that you WANT to do evil and quit looking for excuses.


----------



## LilOlLady

SassyIrishLass said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
Click to expand...

*All *the women I have known that have had abortions were practicing Christians. All the women I know that are pro-choice are practicing Christians. One of the reasons I am not a practicing Christian. I am one with GOD and nature. Not religious but spiritual knowing right from wrong. Was taught from an early age to respect life.
Americans with *no religious attachment* (self-identified atheists, agnostics, ... Men, Nonwhites, and Southerners Are Among the *Most "Pro-Life"*.
In U.S., Nonreligious, Postgrads Are Highly "Pro-Choice"


----------



## Death Angel

LilOlLady said:


> *All *the women I have known that have had abortions were practicing Christians. All the women I know that are pro-choice are practicing Christians


Funny, I know NONE.

Maybe those you claim to know should stop PRACTICING and just do right.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Penelope said:


> Where does it say in the Bible that thou shall not have an abortion and where does it say abortion is murder?




Where does the 14th amendment say murder/abortion is legal? Where does the 1st amendment say freedom of speech on the radio, television, internet?


----------



## Wyatt earp

LilOlLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All *the women I have known that have had abortions were practicing Christians. All the women I know that are pro-choice are practicing Christians. One of the reasons I am not a practicing Christian. I am one with GOD and nature. Not religious but spiritual knowing right from wrong. Was taught from an early age to respect life.
> Americans with *no religious attachment* (self-identified atheists, agnostics, ... Men, Nonwhites, and Southerners Are Among the *Most "Pro-Life"*.
> In U.S., Nonreligious, Postgrads Are Highly "Pro-Choice"
Click to expand...



That's not a Christian


.


----------



## LilOlLady

bear513 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say in the Bible that thou shall not have an abortion and where does it say abortion is murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the 14th amendment say murder/abortion is legal? Where does the 1st amendment say freedom of speech on the radio, television, internet?
Click to expand...

*Penelope.*...Abortion is not mentioned in the bible per se because it was not done during that time. But it does refer to the *forced expulsion of an unborn child is murder* and "a life for a life" is the words used.
The unborn baby is undeniably alive and growing, and *taking its life is clearly murder*, as the prophet Jeremiah points out: “*He did not kill me in the womb,* with my mother as my grave” (Jeremiah 20:17). God vowed to punish those who* “ripped open the women with child”* (Amos 1:13). In ancient Israel, the unborn child was granted *equal protection in the law*; if he lost his life, the one who caused his death must lose his own life: “If men who are fighting* hit a pregnant woman* and she *gives birth prematurely *but there is no serious injury, the offender must be* fined* . . .But if there is serious injury, you are to take* life for life”* (Exodus 21:22,23).
Under the anti-abortions laws, a doctor performing abortions are given l*ife sentences *and they are lucky because if they did this under biblical law they would be* put to death. *


----------



## LilOlLady

I just remembered something. When I was a child and my family was attending the Methodist Church, the pastor's wife performed abortions and the entire town know it. Case in point is that most pro-choice are Christians.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

LilOlLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wasting your time discussing Biblical matters with an left loon atheist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All *the women I have known that have had abortions were practicing Christians. All the women I know that are pro-choice are practicing Christians. One of the reasons I am not a practicing Christian. I am one with GOD and nature. Not religious but spiritual knowing right from wrong. Was taught from an early age to respect life.
> Americans with *no religious attachment* (self-identified atheists, agnostics, ... Men, Nonwhites, and Southerners Are Among the *Most "Pro-Life"*.
> In U.S., Nonreligious, Postgrads Are Highly "Pro-Choice"
Click to expand...


Yeah right....sit down


----------



## SassyIrishLass

LilOlLady said:


> I just remembered something. When I was a child and my family was attending the Methodist Church, the pastor's wife performed abortions and the entire town know it. Case in point is that most pro-choice are Christians.



You tell tale tales, lady


----------



## Vandalshandle

Hale said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.
> 
> Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.
Click to expand...


Well, no, as I said before on this thread, first I will vote against any politician who would attempt to control my wife and daughter's body. If that failed, I would simply bypass the law, as we used to do in the 1960's, by having a doctor do a D &C instead of an abortion, If that didn't work, I would take her to another state to have it done, and if that didn't work, I would take her to another country to have it done. So, you see, your attempt to legislate our morality would work out pretty much like prohibition did.


----------



## Vandalshandle

bear513 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Unk. I asked my wife and daughter again if you can have legal control of their bodies. They still say, "No".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and they have no choice in the matter as long as you live in my country. My fellow citizens and I, men and women, have established lots of laws about what you can and cannot do with your bodies and to the bodies of others. If you don't like that, there is a spaceship leaving in a few hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I agree. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal, have a nice trip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the ruling ignorant one.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, my! I could have sworn that Roe VS. Wade legalized abortion! Please fill me in with your alternative facts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 14th amendment right to privacy, youre the one indoctrinated on alternative facts brother..
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Bear, you will find that your postings are more comprehensible if you use complete sentences.


----------



## progressive hunter

Vandalshandle said:


> Hale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.
> 
> Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, as I said before on this thread, first I will vote against any politician who would attempt to control my wife and daughter's body. If that failed, I would simply bypass the law, as we used to do in the 1960's, by having a doctor do a D &C instead of an abortion, If that didn't work, I would take her to another state to have it done, and if that didn't work, I would take her to another country to have it done. So, you see, your attempt to legislate our morality would work out pretty much like prohibition did.
Click to expand...



so you would vote to let your grandchild be murdered,,,


----------



## Muhammed

Moonglow said:


> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body.


And you never will.


----------



## Vandalshandle

progressive hunter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.
> 
> Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, as I said before on this thread, first I will vote against any politician who would attempt to control my wife and daughter's body. If that failed, I would simply bypass the law, as we used to do in the 1960's, by having a doctor do a D &C instead of an abortion, If that didn't work, I would take her to another state to have it done, and if that didn't work, I would take her to another country to have it done. So, you see, your attempt to legislate our morality would work out pretty much like prohibition did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you would vote to let your grandchild be murdered,,,
Click to expand...


No, I think that instead, I would vote to make your Erectile Dysfunction medication illegal.....


----------



## progressive hunter

Vandalshandle said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.
> 
> Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, as I said before on this thread, first I will vote against any politician who would attempt to control my wife and daughter's body. If that failed, I would simply bypass the law, as we used to do in the 1960's, by having a doctor do a D &C instead of an abortion, If that didn't work, I would take her to another state to have it done, and if that didn't work, I would take her to another country to have it done. So, you see, your attempt to legislate our morality would work out pretty much like prohibition did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you would vote to let your grandchild be murdered,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think that instead, I would vote to make your Erectile Dysfunction medication illegal.....
Click to expand...



now thats funnier the shit,,,NOT


but what did I expect from a baby killer


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep that in mind while thinking of ways to control your life, in accordance with my moral beliefs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you do when you support laws making rape, murder, or theft of any kind illegal. Or are you coming out as full anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, ...n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No dogma, just you lacking the courage and honesty to face your own position clearly and directly. Talk all the shit you want, you know damn well what slaughtering the completely innocent really is. The lie of your politics doesn’t get you off the hook with yourself when you dare to be honest in your private moments.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

And yet again: one can oppose abortion, believe it to be wrong, and seek its end consistent with the constitution and the right to privacy.

Respecting a woman's right to privacy while advocating for the end of abortion are not at odds with each other .


----------



## LilOlLady

SassyIrishLass said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. WTF? Why do religious people assume their irrational beliefs matter to anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All *the women I have known that have had abortions were practicing Christians. All the women I know that are pro-choice are practicing Christians. One of the reasons I am not a practicing Christian. I am one with GOD and nature. Not religious but spiritual knowing right from wrong. Was taught from an early age to respect life.
> Americans with *no religious attachment* (self-identified atheists, agnostics, ... Men, Nonwhites, and Southerners Are Among the *Most "Pro-Life"*.
> In U.S., Nonreligious, Postgrads Are Highly "Pro-Choice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right....sit down
Click to expand...

One does not have to be a Christian to believe in GOD and the bible. I believe in GOD but I reject traditional Christian teachings of the bible. There are *35 Christian denominations* in the United States and they all teach a different interpretation of the bible. If asked if I am a Christian, I have to say no not in the traditional sense. I have a personal relationship with my GOD and I base my beliefs on my understanding. The government needs to back off making laws that pertain to my body. I have a basic human understanding of what is right or wrong and I put it into practice. I remember when I was pregnant with my youngest and my two older children were protective of the baby inside me and they had no understanding of what it was except it was there sister and wanted no harm to come to her. You do not have to know GOD or be a Christian to have respect for life. I am so pro-life that I will not accept cut flowers or cut a flower and watch it die. If one chose to have an abortion do not ask others to participate like a doctor to do it for you. And doctors should not be forced by law to perform abortions. Abortion should not be a medical procedure unless the mother's life is at risk. People abort because the unborn baby has Downs Syndrome, etc. Am I less a human if I am on a ventilator and forced tube fed to stay alive. I have a granddaughter that has downs syndrome and I have Multiple Sclerosis and I cannot walk. Have COPD because I was a smoker. I am disabled but does that make me not a viable human being. I depend on assistance to live. An unborn child depends on its mother for life sustaining oxygen and food, etc.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

LilOlLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, there are many who do care about the *life of the unborn*. Jehovah’s Witnesses (75%) and *Mormons* (70%) say abortion should be _illegal_ in all or most cases, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of more than 35,000 Americans in all 50 states. The same holds true for members of some *evangelical churches*, including the *Pentecostal denominations Church of God* (Cleveland, Tennessee) (77%) and *Assemblies of God (*71%), as well as America’s largest evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (66%). Indeed, among all those who are part of the evangelical tradition, n*early twice as many say they oppose legal abortion as support it* (63% to 33%).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All *the women I have known that have had abortions were practicing Christians. All the women I know that are pro-choice are practicing Christians. One of the reasons I am not a practicing Christian. I am one with GOD and nature. Not religious but spiritual knowing right from wrong. Was taught from an early age to respect life.
> Americans with *no religious attachment* (self-identified atheists, agnostics, ... Men, Nonwhites, and Southerners Are Among the *Most "Pro-Life"*.
> In U.S., Nonreligious, Postgrads Are Highly "Pro-Choice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right....sit down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One does not have to be a Christian to believe in GOD and the bible. I believe in GOD but I reject traditional Christian teachings of the bible. There are *35 Christian denominations* in the United States and they all teach a different interpretation of the bible. If asked if I am a Christian, I have to say no not in the traditional sense. I have a personal relationship with my GOD and I base my beliefs on my understanding. The government needs to back off making laws that pertain to my body. I have a basic human understanding of what is right or wrong and I put it into practice. I remember when I was pregnant with my youngest and my two older children were protective of the baby inside me and they had no understanding of what it was except it was there sister and wanted no harm to come to her. You do not have to know GOD or be a Christian to have respect for life. I am so pro-life that I will not accept cut flowers or cut a flower and watch it die. If one chose to have an abortion do not ask others to participate like a doctor to do it for you. And doctors should not be forced by law to perform abortions. Abortion should not be a medical procedure unless the mother's life is at risk. People abort because the unborn baby has Downs Syndrome, etc. Am I less a human if I am on a ventilator and forced tube fed to stay alive. I have a granddaughter that has downs syndrome and I have Multiple Sclerosis and I cannot walk. Have COPD because I was a smoker. I am disabled but does that make me not a viable human being. I depend on assistance to live. An unborn child depends on its mother for life sustaining oxygen and food, etc.
Click to expand...


Malarkey


----------



## LilOlLady

A child is not viable per se until it is able to provide for its own care and not depend on it's mother to stay alive but it is still a life. Just as the unborn child. An unborn child does not breathe but still takes in oxygen from its mother. I believe with time science will be able to bring a child to full term in a putrid dish, etc without being in the womb of a host woman. There are animals that not have lungs to breathe in oxygen but are still living being. There was a time when Blacks in this country and under the law were not considered human and then was only considered 3/4 human.


----------



## LilOlLady

SassyIrishLass said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is good, no one likes or is pro abortion, but its all about pro choice.  So many of those so called Christians have had one or more abortions.
> 
> Take Abby Johnson, who worked at PP for several years, and had *2 *abortions.  She found God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All *the women I have known that have had abortions were practicing Christians. All the women I know that are pro-choice are practicing Christians. One of the reasons I am not a practicing Christian. I am one with GOD and nature. Not religious but spiritual knowing right from wrong. Was taught from an early age to respect life.
> Americans with *no religious attachment* (self-identified atheists, agnostics, ... Men, Nonwhites, and Southerners Are Among the *Most "Pro-Life"*.
> In U.S., Nonreligious, Postgrads Are Highly "Pro-Choice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right....sit down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One does not have to be a Christian to believe in GOD and the bible. I believe in GOD but I reject traditional Christian teachings of the bible. There are *35 Christian denominations* in the United States and they all teach a different interpretation of the bible. If asked if I am a Christian, I have to say no not in the traditional sense. I have a personal relationship with my GOD and I base my beliefs on my understanding. The government needs to back off making laws that pertain to my body. I have a basic human understanding of what is right or wrong and I put it into practice. I remember when I was pregnant with my youngest and my two older children were protective of the baby inside me and they had no understanding of what it was except it was there sister and wanted no harm to come to her. You do not have to know GOD or be a Christian to have respect for life. I am so pro-life that I will not accept cut flowers or cut a flower and watch it die. If one chose to have an abortion do not ask others to participate like a doctor to do it for you. And doctors should not be forced by law to perform abortions. Abortion should not be a medical procedure unless the mother's life is at risk. People abort because the unborn baby has Downs Syndrome, etc. Am I less a human if I am on a ventilator and forced tube fed to stay alive. I have a granddaughter that has downs syndrome and I have Multiple Sclerosis and I cannot walk. Have COPD because I was a smoker. I am disabled but does that make me not a viable human being. I depend on assistance to live. An unborn child depends on its mother for life-sustaining oxygen and food, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Malarkey
Click to expand...

That is expected from people who do not have an answer.


----------



## Dragonlady

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



I find ALL of the anti-abortion talking points to be both stupid and laughable, but not in any way funny. 

The very idea that YOUR beliefs about the sanctity of fetal life, none of which have ANY basis in biology, or reality, should govern how the rest of us live, is laughable. 

Neither a zygote nor a fetus are babies. Babies can live and breathe on their own without benefit of a host. 

God gave women choice in having babies. He recognized that timing is critical to the survival of the species. Being pregnant in times of war, or famine, or migration could lead to the death of both mother and child, or hardships for families so God gave us an out for bad timing.  He could have made pregnancy absolute but He didn’t. 

God gave us choice. You idiots would take it away.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

LilOlLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove" so many of those Christians had one ir more abortions"...if not shut the hell up
> 
> 
> 
> *All *the women I have known that have had abortions were practicing Christians. All the women I know that are pro-choice are practicing Christians. One of the reasons I am not a practicing Christian. I am one with GOD and nature. Not religious but spiritual knowing right from wrong. Was taught from an early age to respect life.
> Americans with *no religious attachment* (self-identified atheists, agnostics, ... Men, Nonwhites, and Southerners Are Among the *Most "Pro-Life"*.
> In U.S., Nonreligious, Postgrads Are Highly "Pro-Choice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right....sit down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One does not have to be a Christian to believe in GOD and the bible. I believe in GOD but I reject traditional Christian teachings of the bible. There are *35 Christian denominations* in the United States and they all teach a different interpretation of the bible. If asked if I am a Christian, I have to say no not in the traditional sense. I have a personal relationship with my GOD and I base my beliefs on my understanding. The government needs to back off making laws that pertain to my body. I have a basic human understanding of what is right or wrong and I put it into practice. I remember when I was pregnant with my youngest and my two older children were protective of the baby inside me and they had no understanding of what it was except it was there sister and wanted no harm to come to her. You do not have to know GOD or be a Christian to have respect for life. I am so pro-life that I will not accept cut flowers or cut a flower and watch it die. If one chose to have an abortion do not ask others to participate like a doctor to do it for you. And doctors should not be forced by law to perform abortions. Abortion should not be a medical procedure unless the mother's life is at risk. People abort because the unborn baby has Downs Syndrome, etc. Am I less a human if I am on a ventilator and forced tube fed to stay alive. I have a granddaughter that has downs syndrome and I have Multiple Sclerosis and I cannot walk. Have COPD because I was a smoker. I am disabled but does that make me not a viable human being. I depend on assistance to live. An unborn child depends on its mother for life-sustaining oxygen and food, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Malarkey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is expected from people who do not have an answer.
Click to expand...


I don't take you serious...I'm mocking you.

You'll figure it out soon


----------



## ph3iron

progressive hunter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.
> 
> Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, as I said before on this thread, first I will vote against any politician who would attempt to control my wife and daughter's body. If that failed, I would simply bypass the law, as we used to do in the 1960's, by having a doctor do a D &C instead of an abortion, If that didn't work, I would take her to another state to have it done, and if that didn't work, I would take her to another country to have it done. So, you see, your attempt to legislate our morality would work out pretty much like prohibition did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you would vote to let your grandchild be murdered,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think that instead, I would vote to make your Erectile Dysfunction medication illegal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> now thats funnier the shit,,,NOT
> 
> 
> but what did I expect from a baby killer
Click to expand...

 


progressive hunter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.
> 
> Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, as I said before on this thread, first I will vote against any politician who would attempt to control my wife and daughter's body. If that failed, I would simply bypass the law, as we used to do in the 1960's, by having a doctor do a D &C instead of an abortion, If that didn't work, I would take her to another state to have it done, and if that didn't work, I would take her to another country to have it done. So, you see, your attempt to legislate our morality would work out pretty much like prohibition did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you would vote to let your grandchild be murdered,,,
Click to expand...


Especially when they get to a teenager.
There's No speaking to god nuts


----------



## ph3iron

progressive hunter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.
> 
> Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, as I said before on this thread, first I will vote against any politician who would attempt to control my wife and daughter's body. If that failed, I would simply bypass the law, as we used to do in the 1960's, by having a doctor do a D &C instead of an abortion, If that didn't work, I would take her to another state to have it done, and if that didn't work, I would take her to another country to have it done. So, you see, your attempt to legislate our morality would work out pretty much like prohibition did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you would vote to let your grandchild be murdered,,,
Click to expand...


Only if they were God indoctrinated


----------



## ph3iron

beagle9 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called Google darlin
> God, the biggest mass murderer in history?
> "The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.
> 
> We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.
> 
> It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults. If God really opposes abortion, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he authorize one of his trusted spokesmen—Moses, Jesus or Paul—to issue a definitive statement on the subject?
> 
> It is also noteworthy that while the bible requires the death penalty for 60 specified criminal violations, abortion is not among them. When all relevant documentation is examined, it is obvious that God does not love the unborn and he certainly does not disapprove of abortion.
> Killed millions of unborn children?
> Which bible ARE you reading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No where will you hide from his judgement. You can hide in the mountains, and they will fall down upon you. You can hide in space, and the meteor's will shower your position, otherwise you will have no where you can hide from him nor from his judgement, so be ready for it, because it shall come.
> 
> Your blasphemy is noted.
Click to expand...

Blasphemy to god nuts, truth to others.
I'll be watching for the meteors.


----------



## dblack

Death Angel said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got that. But I'm just wondering why we're supposed to care about Bible quotes when it comes to legislation?
> 
> 
> 
> How many damn times does the left quote Scripture here (out of context) to try to influence the "right" on this board?
Click to expand...


I dunno. How many?


----------



## ph3iron

dblack said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got that. But I'm just wondering why we're supposed to care about Bible quotes when it comes to legislation?
> 
> 
> 
> How many damn times does the left quote Scripture here (out of context) to try to influence the "right" on this board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno. How many?
Click to expand...


Isn't there a separate God nut abortion forum.?
Impossible to discuss with the # 1 indoctrination religion boys and girls
On the bible
What Does the Bible Really Say About Abortion? - Freedom From Religion Foundation
God is the biggest mass murderer?


----------



## Hale

ph3iron said:


> Isn't there a separate God nut abortion forum.?
> Impossible to discuss with the # 1 indoctrination religion boys and girls
> On the bible
> What Does the Bible Really Say About Abortion? - Freedom From Religion Foundation
> God is the biggest mass murderer?


Some knowledge of Christianity would be helpful to you before attempting ridiculous claims like this one.  The verses to which your article refers are Old Testament, and deal very specifically with Mosaic Law, _pre_-Christianity. 

I'll leave you to research the difference and inform yourself, but suffice it to say that the entirety of the Bible is NOT a Christian "rule book".  Those under Mosaic Law lived in a totally different spiritual era which pointed _toward_ the coming of Christ, and to equate these two eras as equivalent is utterly false.


----------



## Unkotare

ph3iron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hale said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.
> 
> Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, as I said before on this thread, first I will vote against any politician who would attempt to control my wife and daughter's body. If that failed, I would simply bypass the law, as we used to do in the 1960's, by having a doctor do a D &C instead of an abortion, If that didn't work, I would take her to another state to have it done, and if that didn't work, I would take her to another country to have it done. So, you see, your attempt to legislate our morality would work out pretty much like prohibition did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you would vote to let your grandchild be murdered,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think that instead, I would vote to make your Erectile Dysfunction medication illegal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> now thats funnier the shit,,,NOT
> 
> 
> but what did I expect from a baby killer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since abortion is not "murder", you are violating my rights with your religious dogma, just like you guys did when you made it illegal for any retail establishment to be open on Sunday where I grew up in the South. I tolerated that for 26 years, before we overcame that absurdity. I have no intention of tolerating it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All laws are a compromise based on the conclusions of a particular civilization.  All you've done here is show your civil disobedience at best, and your outright criminality at worst.
> 
> Last time you "tolerated" it, what are you going to do this time?  Lie on your back screaming and pounding your little fists?  Yea, that's what I thought.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, as I said before on this thread, first I will vote against any politician who would attempt to control my wife and daughter's body. If that failed, I would simply bypass the law, as we used to do in the 1960's, by having a doctor do a D &C instead of an abortion, If that didn't work, I would take her to another state to have it done, and if that didn't work, I would take her to another country to have it done. So, you see, your attempt to legislate our morality would work out pretty much like prohibition did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you would vote to let your grandchild be murdered,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially when they get to a teenager.
> There's No speaking to god nuts
Click to expand...





There’s no talking to death-fetish abortionists.


----------



## beagle9

Dragonlady said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find ALL of the anti-abortion talking points to be both stupid and laughable, but not in any way funny.
> 
> The very idea that YOUR beliefs about the sanctity of fetal life, none of which have ANY basis in biology, or reality, should govern how the rest of us live, is laughable.
> 
> Neither a zygote nor a fetus are babies. Babies can live and breathe on their own without benefit of a host.
> 
> God gave women choice in having babies. He recognized that timing is critical to the survival of the species. Being pregnant in times of war, or famine, or migration could lead to the death of both mother and child, or hardships for families so God gave us an out for bad timing.  He could have made pregnancy absolute but He didn’t.
> 
> God gave us choice. You idiots would take it away.
Click to expand...

And God gave the people in this world enough sense to know wrong when they see it, and killing innocent defenseless babies while in the womb is as wrong as it gets. No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc.  Trump is on the job.


----------



## beagle9

ph3iron said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called Google darlin
> God, the biggest mass murderer in history?
> "The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.
> 
> We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.
> 
> It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults. If God really opposes abortion, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he authorize one of his trusted spokesmen—Moses, Jesus or Paul—to issue a definitive statement on the subject?
> 
> It is also noteworthy that while the bible requires the death penalty for 60 specified criminal violations, abortion is not among them. When all relevant documentation is examined, it is obvious that God does not love the unborn and he certainly does not disapprove of abortion.
> Killed millions of unborn children?
> Which bible ARE you reading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No where will you hide from his judgement. You can hide in the mountains, and they will fall down upon you. You can hide in space, and the meteor's will shower your position, otherwise you will have no where you can hide from him nor from his judgement, so be ready for it, because it shall come.
> 
> Your blasphemy is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blasphemy to god nuts, truth to others.
> I'll be watching for the meteors.
Click to expand...

From your space ship window ? Hurry along now.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood the old testament and the new testament after Jesus came you would understand. Until then I do not expect you to understand. Things changed after Jesus came and his death.
> 
> 
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal opinion and religious dogma are subjective and in no manner mitigate facts of law – the fact of law that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ and that abortion is not ‘murder.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islamics everywhere rejoice in your validation!!!!!
Click to expand...


Hey I found your FB page!


----------



## Vandalshandle

bear513 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal opinion and religious dogma are subjective and in no manner mitigate facts of law – the fact of law that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ and that abortion is not ‘murder.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islamics everywhere rejoice in your validation!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey I found your FB page!
Click to expand...


if you have a problem with the way Islamic women are treated by men, you should address your post to Lilolady, who posted, "GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD".


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find ALL of the anti-abortion talking points to be both stupid and laughable, but not in any way funny.
> 
> The very idea that YOUR beliefs about the sanctity of fetal life, none of which have ANY basis in biology, or reality, should govern how the rest of us live, is laughable.
> 
> Neither a zygote nor a fetus are babies. Babies can live and breathe on their own without benefit of a host.
> 
> God gave women choice in having babies. He recognized that timing is critical to the survival of the species. Being pregnant in times of war, or famine, or migration could lead to the death of both mother and child, or hardships for families so God gave us an out for bad timing.  He could have made pregnancy absolute but He didn’t.
> 
> God gave us choice. You idiots would take it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And God gave the people in this world enough sense to know wrong when they see it, and killing innocent defenseless babies while in the womb is as wrong as it gets. No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc.  Trump is on the job.
Click to expand...

An example of the insanity that is the Trump supporter.


----------



## Dragonlady

beagle9 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find ALL of the anti-abortion talking points to be both stupid and laughable, but not in any way funny.
> 
> The very idea that YOUR beliefs about the sanctity of fetal life, none of which have ANY basis in biology, or reality, should govern how the rest of us live, is laughable.
> 
> Neither a zygote nor a fetus are babies. Babies can live and breathe on their own without benefit of a host.
> 
> God gave women choice in having babies. He recognized that timing is critical to the survival of the species. Being pregnant in times of war, or famine, or migration could lead to the death of both mother and child, or hardships for families so God gave us an out for bad timing.  He could have made pregnancy absolute but He didn’t.
> 
> God gave us choice. You idiots would take it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And God gave the people in this world enough sense to know wrong when they see it, and killing innocent defenseless babies while in the womb is as wrong as it gets. No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc.  Trump is on the job.
Click to expand...


It's more profitable to the medical industrial complex for the woman to carry the child and deliver it.  Pre-natal care, confinement and delivery, and post natal are generate far more income than an abortion.


----------



## SAYIT

Dragonlady said:


> I find ALL of the anti-abortion talking points to be both stupid and laughable, but not in any way funny. The very idea that YOUR beliefs about the sanctity of fetal life, none of which have ANY basis in biology, or reality, should govern how the rest of us live, is laughable...





ph3iron said:


> Isn't there a separate God nut abortion forum.?


For many of us, opposing the slaughter and flushing of babies isn't a religious or God issue but one of defending those whose voices are just too small to be heard. 

That is my humanity. Where is yours?


----------



## SAYIT

Dragonlady said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find ALL of the anti-abortion talking points to be both stupid and laughable, but not in any way funny.
> 
> The very idea that YOUR beliefs about the sanctity of fetal life, none of which have ANY basis in biology, or reality, should govern how the rest of us live, is laughable.
> 
> Neither a zygote nor a fetus are babies. Babies can live and breathe on their own without benefit of a host.
> 
> God gave women choice in having babies. He recognized that timing is critical to the survival of the species. Being pregnant in times of war, or famine, or migration could lead to the death of both mother and child, or hardships for families so God gave us an out for bad timing.  He could have made pregnancy absolute but He didn’t.
> 
> God gave us choice. You idiots would take it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And God gave the people in this world enough sense to know wrong when they see it, and killing innocent defenseless babies while in the womb is as wrong as it gets. No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc.  Trump is on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more profitable to the medical industrial complex for the woman to carry the child and deliver it.  Pre-natal care, confinement and delivery, and post natal are generate far more income than an abortion.
Click to expand...

In the aggregate but not for the individuals and organizations that make their living performing abortions.


----------



## LilOlLady

Vandalshandle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> 
> 
> Personal opinion and religious dogma are subjective and in no manner mitigate facts of law – the fact of law that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ and that abortion is not ‘murder.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islamics everywhere rejoice in your validation!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey I found your FB page!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you have a problem with the way Islamic women are treated by men, you should address your post to Lilolady, who posted, "GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD".
Click to expand...

More unborn babies are murdered in this country then honor killing of Muslim women. We also killed more innocent Muslims in unnecessary wars than Muslim men. "Clean up your own back yard before telling someone else how to clean their back yard."


----------



## strollingbones

while we are quoting the bible...deuteronomy 23-2


----------



## strollingbones

riddle me this..how are they defining abortion.....have they banned pharms or just d & c?  how can one stop pharm abortions?  not plan b...but the 2 pill ones...white women do


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find ALL of the anti-abortion talking points to be both stupid and laughable, but not in any way funny.
> 
> The very idea that YOUR beliefs about the sanctity of fetal life, none of which have ANY basis in biology, or reality, should govern how the rest of us live, is laughable.
> 
> Neither a zygote nor a fetus are babies. Babies can live and breathe on their own without benefit of a host.
> 
> God gave women choice in having babies. He recognized that timing is critical to the survival of the species. Being pregnant in times of war, or famine, or migration could lead to the death of both mother and child, or hardships for families so God gave us an out for bad timing.  He could have made pregnancy absolute but He didn’t.
> 
> God gave us choice. You idiots would take it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And God gave the people in this world enough sense to know wrong when they see it, and killing innocent defenseless babies while in the womb is as wrong as it gets. No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc.  Trump is on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An example of the insanity that is the Trump supporter.
Click to expand...


They're desperate for anything that can help them crawl out from under the stigma of following Trump's depravity. Nothing is more dangerous than a self-righteous zealot with a guilty conscience.


----------



## SAYIT

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc. Trump is on the job.
> 
> 
> 
> An example of the insanity that is the Trump supporter.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh … because speaking for those whose voices are too small to be heard is irrefutable proof of insanity. Get a mirror … you've surrendered your soul to your religion … Leftardism.
​


dblack said:


> They're desperate for anything that can help them crawl out from under the stigma of following Trump's depravity. Nothing is more dangerous than a self-righteous zealot with a guilty conscience.


You remain delusional. Most Americans don't obsess for 30 months over a lost election. In fact, most don't give a flying rat's ass about our chatter here or your still very painful Electoral College butt-hurt.

63 million Americans - me not among them - voted for Trump in 2016 including 4 million Dems and 19 million Independents. We all knew who and what he was and still he defeated "the most qualified candidate evah" despite her having our MSM in her pocket and spending more than twice what he did. Evidently her gov't experience and political "elite" membership - which she never failed to flaunt - hurt her as much as helped.

Rational Americans are far more concerned with results and some hapless Democrat Socialist is gonna have to run against Trump's next year. Good luck with that. 

*Job Growth Underscores Economy’s Vigor; Unemployment at Half-Century Low*

A nicely and sustainably expanding economy (which has raised all ships) with low inflation.

Historically low unemployment (especially amongst our minorities) with rising wages and disposable income.

A strong dollar and investment markets.

A righting of what had been a listing (left) USSC.

Repeated exposure of our self-serving swamp and the nefarious players within it, including but not limited to our MSM/DNC and high-ranking mutts at both our DOJ & FBI.

No wonder you bitter, bitter leftards are so hysterical. Anything good for America and Americans you consider to be bad.


*Thank you Mr Prez and MAGA, baby!!*


----------



## dblack

SAYIT said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find ALL of the anti-abortion talking points to be both stupid and laughable, but not in any way funny.
> 
> The very idea that YOUR beliefs about the sanctity of fetal life, none of which have ANY basis in biology, or reality, should govern how the rest of us live, is laughable.
> 
> Neither a zygote nor a fetus are babies. Babies can live and breathe on their own without benefit of a host.
> 
> God gave women choice in having babies. He recognized that timing is critical to the survival of the species. Being pregnant in times of war, or famine, or migration could lead to the death of both mother and child, or hardships for families so God gave us an out for bad timing.  He could have made pregnancy absolute but He didn’t.
> 
> God gave us choice. You idiots would take it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And God gave the people in this world enough sense to know wrong when they see it, and killing innocent defenseless babies while in the womb is as wrong as it gets. No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc.  Trump is on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An example of the insanity that is the Trump supporter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're desperate for anything that can help them crawl out from under the stigma of following Trump's depravity. Nothing is more dangerous than a self-righteous zealot with a guilty conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are delusional. Most Americans don't obsess for 30 months over a lost election. In fact, most don't give a flying rat's ass about our chatter here or your still very painful Electoral College butt-hurt.
> 
> 63 million Americans - me not among them - voted for Trump in 2016 including 4 million Dems and 19 million Independents. We all knew who and what he was and still he defeated "the most qualified candidate evah" despite her having our MSM in her pocket and spending more than twice what he did. Evidently her gov't experience and political "elite" membership - which she never failed to flaunt - hurt her as much as helped.
> 
> Rational Americans are far more concerned with results and some hapless Democrat Socialist is gonna have to run against Trump's next year. Good luck with that.
> 
> *Job Growth Underscores Economy’s Vigor; Unemployment at Half-Century Low*
> 
> A nicely and sustainably expanding economy (which has raised all ships) with low inflation.
> 
> Historically low unemployment (especially amongst our minorities) with rising wages and disposable income.
> 
> A strong dollar and investment markets.
> 
> A righting of what had been a listing (left) USSC.
> 
> Repeated exposure of our self-serving swamp and the nefarious players within it, including but not limited to our MSM/DNC and high-ranking mutts at both our DOJ & FBI.
> 
> No wonder you bitter, bitter leftards are so hysterical. Anything good for America and Americans you consider to be bad.
> 
> 
> *Thank you Mr Prez and MAGA, baby!!*
Click to expand...


See what I mean?


----------



## Dragonlady

SAYIT said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc. Trump is on the job.
> 
> 
> 
> An example of the insanity that is the Trump supporter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh-huh … because speaking for those whose voices are too small to be heard is irrefutable proof of insanity. Get a mirror … you've surrendered your soul to your religion … Leftardism.
> ​
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're desperate for anything that can help them crawl out from under the stigma of following Trump's depravity. Nothing is more dangerous than a self-righteous zealot with a guilty conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain delusional. Most Americans don't obsess for 30 months over a lost election. In fact, most don't give a flying rat's ass about our chatter here or your still very painful Electoral College butt-hurt.
> 
> 63 million Americans - me not among them - voted for Trump in 2016 including 4 million Dems and 19 million Independents. We all knew who and what he was and still he defeated "the most qualified candidate evah" despite her having our MSM in her pocket and spending more than twice what he did. Evidently her gov't experience and political "elite" membership - which she never failed to flaunt - hurt her as much as helped.
> 
> Rational Americans are far more concerned with results and some hapless Democrat Socialist is gonna have to run against Trump's next year. Good luck with that.
> 
> *Job Growth Underscores Economy’s Vigor; Unemployment at Half-Century Low*
> 
> A nicely and sustainably expanding economy (which has raised all ships) with low inflation.
> 
> Historically low unemployment (especially amongst our minorities) with rising wages and disposable income.
> 
> A strong dollar and investment markets.
> 
> A righting of what had been a listing (left) USSC.
> 
> Repeated exposure of our self-serving swamp and the nefarious players within it, including but not limited to our MSM/DNC and high-ranking mutts at both our DOJ & FBI.
> 
> No wonder you bitter, bitter leftards are so hysterical. Anything good for America and Americans you consider to be bad.
> 
> 
> *Thank you Mr Prez and MAGA, baby!!*
Click to expand...


63 million Americans didn't realize that Donald Trump was lying to them about everything he was saying when they voted for him in 2016.  Now they know better.  Witness the mid-Term elections, and the daily hit that membership in the Republican Party is taking.

Look at the low quality of the candidates running on the Republican ticket these days.  The mess being made of health care, the environment, global warming, the trade wars, the destruction of the EPA.  States are busy adding environment regulations to counter the destruction on air and water quality that the EPA roll back of clean water and clean air regulations could have.

"Speaking for voices too small to speak" is such bullshit.  A fetus has no voice, no mouth to speak with, and no brain to form a thought.  In heeding this non-existent voice, you are utterly denying the *WOMAN'S VOICE*, and that of her existing children, when she says "I cannot afford to have this baby".  Or the reality that the women who are making this choice, are doing so because of *Republican policies*.


----------



## M14 Shooter




----------



## strollingbones




----------



## LilOlLady

strollingbones said:


> while we are quoting the bible...deuteronomy 23-2


GOD was talking to the natural nation of Israel that does not exist anymore.  Heb 8;13...By calling this covenant "new," he has made the *first one obsolete*; and what is obsolete and *outdated will soon disappear.*


----------



## Dragonlady

strollingbones said:


>



Yes, the idea that conservatives continue to refer to babies as "consequences" is chilling.  Children are human beings who should be cherished and wanted by two loving parents who are prepared to provide for its needs, both physical and emotional, not inflicted as "punishment" for behaviour conservatives view as "immoral".

Then there's this overwhelming drumbeat to restrict access to birth control for young women because it encourages "immoral behaviour".  Remembering what life was like for teenagers and young women in the 1950's, before the Pill, such talk is positively frightening.  Girls in high school who got "in trouble", were immediately expelled and not allowed back into school.  So you have a young couple who are pregnant and banned from completing high school. 

Abortions were dodgy, back alley things.  I remember a friend going for an abortion.  Her brother found a guy he said was a doctor who would do it.  I remember going to check on her after she got home, being frightened for her life.  Years later, after abortions were legalized, I accompanied another friend to the hospital for a legal abortion.  No fear or danger involved.  Just concern for getting her through this process, and home to recover.  

There were orphanages because so many children were born out of wedlock to unwed mothers.  Sometimes the girl's parents "adopted" a baby and raised the child as his/her mother's sibling.  There were far more children awaiting adoption than there were parents looking for children.  There were also a LOT more children born with disabilities.

I grew up in the 1950's and 1960's and remember the terror of our "abstinence only" health classes.  If things got "out of hand", it was the girl's responsibility to put a stop to it, because boy's couldn't really help themselves.  And if things got out of hand and we found ourselves "in trouble", our lives would be forever ruined.  Even if we went away and had the baby and gave it up, no decent man would ever want to marry us.  And at one point, the child's birth certificate actually had the word "bastard" on it.

Good times.  Conservatives are on a determined march to return us to these times.  When women bled out in emergency rooms from botched abortions.  All that ended with _Roe v Wade_.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



I find 'mind your own business' works well.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
Click to expand...


Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery


----------



## Unkotare

Leave it to democrats to refer to the most innocent, potential-abounding human life as “punishment,” while completely overlooking who is REALLY being punished.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personal opinion and religious dogma are subjective and in no manner mitigate facts of law – the fact of law that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ and that abortion is not ‘murder.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islamics everywhere rejoice in your validation!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey I found your FB page!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you have a problem with the way Islamic women are treated by men, you should address your post to Lilolady, who posted, "GODs law trumps man's law. Sad you do not know your GOD".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unborn babies are murdered in this country then honor killing of Muslim women. We also killed more innocent Muslims in unnecessary wars than Muslim men. "Clean up your own back yard before telling someone else how to clean their back yard."
Click to expand...


So, your solution to women wanting to end pregnancies is to imprison doctors. Sounds like high order GOP thinking! Then, we can go back to the days when they were performed by your friendly neighborhood abortionist! I guess that is good for the economy. Frank Sinatra's mother used to do that for a living.


----------



## SAYIT

Dragonlady said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc. Trump is on the job.
> 
> 
> 
> An example of the insanity that is the Trump supporter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh-huh … because speaking for those whose voices are too small to be heard is irrefutable proof of insanity. Get a mirror … you've surrendered your soul to your religion … Leftardism.
> ​
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're desperate for anything that can help them crawl out from under the stigma of following Trump's depravity. Nothing is more dangerous than a self-righteous zealot with a guilty conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain delusional. Most Americans don't obsess for 30 months over a lost election. In fact, most don't give a flying rat's ass about our chatter here or your still very painful Electoral College butt-hurt.
> 
> 63 million Americans - me not among them - voted for Trump in 2016 including 4 million Dems and 19 million Independents. We all knew who and what he was and still he defeated "the most qualified candidate evah" despite her having our MSM in her pocket and spending more than twice what he did. Evidently her gov't experience and political "elite" membership - which she never failed to flaunt - hurt her as much as helped.
> 
> Rational Americans are far more concerned with results and some hapless Democrat Socialist is gonna have to run against Trump's next year. Good luck with that.
> 
> *Job Growth Underscores Economy’s Vigor; Unemployment at Half-Century Low*
> 
> A nicely and sustainably expanding economy (which has raised all ships) with low inflation.
> 
> Historically low unemployment (especially amongst our minorities) with rising wages and disposable income.
> 
> A strong dollar and investment markets.
> 
> A righting of what had been a listing (left) USSC.
> 
> Repeated exposure of our self-serving swamp and the nefarious players within it, including but not limited to our MSM/DNC and high-ranking mutts at both our DOJ & FBI.
> 
> No wonder you bitter, bitter leftards are so hysterical. Anything good for America and Americans you consider to be bad.
> 
> 
> *Thank you Mr Prez and MAGA, baby!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 63 million Americans didn't realize that Donald Trump was lying to them about everything he was saying when they voted for him in 2016...
Click to expand...

Probably because he wasn't. Not all Americans are bitter, frustrated, delusional twits.

Yeah … our Democrat Socialist Party will have to run on their identity and against Trump's record.

2020 is gonna be epic and sooo much fun. 


Dragonlady said:


> ...Witness the mid-Term elections, and the daily hit that membership in the Republican Party is taking.
> 
> Look at the low quality of the candidates running on the Republican ticket these days.


Ah … the Midterms. Even you must know the Dems fell far short of the Repub Tsunami in Obama's first middie (2010), failing even to snag the 2 lousy Senate seats they needed to capture it. Hell, the Dems actually lost 2 Senate seats. You must realize fully 1/3 of the Democrat Socialist Party members are running for POTUS because they have no real candidate … just a bunch of retreads (losers), VP hopefuls, 2024 dreamers, and those needing to fill their campaign coffers.


Dragonlady said:


> "Speaking for voices too small to speak" is such bullshit.  A fetus has no voice, no mouth to speak with, and no brain to form a thought.  In heeding this non-existent voice, you are utterly denying the *WOMAN'S VOICE*, and that of her existing children, when she says "I cannot afford to have this baby".  Or the reality that the women who are making this choice, are doing so because of *Republican policies*.


I'm denying no one anything. I'm defending the same right of unborn babies to life as you have enjoyed.

I do understand that many women feel their rights are being trampled but I must weigh that against the right of the unborn to live. It's no contest in my mind.


----------



## Dana7360

SAYIT said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you cling to that silliness is a reflection on you. As the OP noted, it may still be legal but there is no good argument for abortion.
Click to expand...



Really?

There's no good argument to save the live of a woman?

There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy.
1. Nothing is done. The woman dies.
2. An abortion is performed and the woman lives.

That's it. Either an abortion is performed or the woman dies. 

You're saying there's no good argument to save the lives of over 65 thousand women in America each year?

That's what's wrong with you far right wing radical extremists. You're just way too extreme.

You are one sick person.


----------



## SAYIT

Dana7360 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you cling to that silliness is a reflection on you. As the OP noted, it may still be legal but there is no good argument for abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> There's no good argument to save the live of a woman?
> 
> There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy.
> 1. Nothing is done. The woman dies.
> 2. An abortion is performed and the woman lives.
> 
> That's it. Either an abortion is performed or the woman dies.
> 
> You're saying there's no good argument to save the lives of over 65 thousand women in America each year?
> 
> That's what's wrong with you far right wing radical extremists. You're just way too extreme.
> 
> You are one sick person.
Click to expand...

No where have I stated we should not consider the mama's life first but life-saving abortions are 1% of the 800,000 who are slaughtered and flushed each year. Your argument is shrill, lame, and irrational.


----------



## Dana7360

LilOlLady said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was good with abortion in the old testament
> 
> 
> 
> The old covenant became obsolete with the new covenant through Christ and his ransom death.
Click to expand...





Tell that to the millions of Jewish faith in our nation and world.

I guess they don't count do they?


----------



## Dana7360

ph3iron said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian but I know what is morally right and wrong and *murder is wrong* even if you are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is against the law, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of our creator abortion is a crime. And GOD's law always trump man's law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called Google darlin
> God, the biggest mass murderer in history?
> "The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.
> 
> We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.
> 
> It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults. If God really opposes abortion, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he authorize one of his trusted spokesmen—Moses, Jesus or Paul—to issue a definitive statement on the subject?
> 
> It is also noteworthy that while the bible requires the death penalty for 60 specified criminal violations, abortion is not among them. When all relevant documentation is examined, it is obvious that God does not love the unborn and he certainly does not disapprove of abortion.
> 
> Killed millions of unborn children?
> Which bible ARE you reading?
Click to expand...




Far right radical extremists pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to follow.

That is IF they've actually read the whole book.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Unkotare said:


> Leave it to democrats to refer to the most innocent, potential-abounding human life as “punishment,” while completely overlooking who is REALLY being punished.


So what's your solution to end abortion that's consistent with the constitution and doesn't involve more and bigger government?


----------



## Dana7360

Kittymom1026 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The founding fathers were Deists..."
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> No, they weren't 'deists.'
> 
> 
> 
> Let's prove it together.
> 
> 
> The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.
> 
> a) *All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God,* that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
> b) *All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings*
> c) *All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> As the dupes of the Left throw around terms to make their case, let's see what "Deist" actually means.
> 
> As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to prove it with specific Founders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Deism and the Founding Fathers*
> As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.
> 
> Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More?
> Sure thing:
> 
> 4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> *
> 
> Let’s start with George Washington.
> 
> Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States.
> 
> Here is Washington at his first Inaugural:
> “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
> In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
> 
> 
> Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”
> 
> Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.
> 
> 
> 6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!
> 
> "*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”
> 
> 
> a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.”
> 
> Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?
> 
> Definitely, no.
> *
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *
> 
> So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”
> 
> As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.
> 
> 
> 
> These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.
> 
> It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *
> 
> 
> It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> 
> And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?
> 
> Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.
> 
> 8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.
> 
> 
> And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
> "The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.
> 
> Maybe three: lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion.
> And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God."
> Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do.
> And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can.
> Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that?
> You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the DoI has four such references.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> 
> And, as I said earlier, the Constitution has a specific reference to Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly does it mention specifically Jesus Christ by his name because all I could find was the word creator. Here's an article about it and this is in it..
> 
> This is not supported by the historical evidence, and the prime exhibits are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, with no explicit mention of God in the Constitution, and one mention of, as Cooper clearly points out, “…*a* god…”, in the Declaration of Independence.
> It's a pretty comprehensive piece and covers about everything...
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Are-the-words-God-Jesus-or-the-Bible-in-the-U-S-Constitution
Click to expand...



Actually it doesn't say "a god."

The original text of the Declaration of Independence uses the words "their Creator, the laws of Nature and Nature's god."

I don't see any words that are used to describe the christian god. 

A list of grievances follows the words I pasted. I've included a link to the page it came from. This isn't anyone's opinion about what the document says. It's the actual document. 

We all were supposed to have learned what's in that document when we went to school. A full year of US History is required for everyone to be able to graduate from high school. The first quarter of that class is mostly about the revolution, that document and the constitution. 

It's shameful to me that so many conservatives have no clue what's in those documents and what they really mean. 

The Declaration of Independence: Full text

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


----------



## Unkotare

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to democrats to refer to the most innocent, potential-abounding human life as “punishment,” while completely overlooking who is REALLY being punished.
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your solution to end abortion that's consistent with the constitution and doesn't involve more and bigger government?
Click to expand...



The morality, faith, and family structures democrats have been working so hard to undermine over the past century.


----------



## Dana7360

Kittymom1026 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *unborn is alive *and living off the host who is the mother where it gets it food, oxygen, etc so aborting a living being is murder and a crime. *When the unborn is aborted it dies*. It is not like cutting down a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep saying that until the cows come home, but it still doesn't make it murder except in your mind. Like I said before, murder is a crime in this country, abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you lack the courage to even look at the issue honestly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I AM looking at it honestly. I'm not the one spouting the religious crap here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing life is "religious crap" now? If you came upon a dead body in the street, you wouldn't be able to recognize its condition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constantly preaching and quoting bible verses is religious crap. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who is tired of it.
> And finding a dead body on the street is not a good comparison to aborting a clump of cells.
> Where do you people get these crazy ideas from anyhow?
Click to expand...




No one is telling far right wing radical extremists that they can't practice their religion.

Those far right wing radical extremists are telling everyone else they can't practice their religion. Not only that, they are telling people that they actually have the right to get laws passed to force far right wing radical extremist religion on everyone in America.

They aren't happy to be free to live their lives according to their religious beliefs. They have the audacity to believe they have the right to violate the constitution and spend their lives taking freedom from everyone who doesn't agree with their far right wing extremist views.


----------



## beautress

Moonglow said:


> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..


A human being forms in a woman who had sex. It attaches itself to the woman's uterus. That uterus is its home until birth.

If she doesn't want someone else parking in her uterus for nine months, it won't kill her to wait out nine months. She will be rewarded with a hormone bath that fills her breasts with milk for that baby.

Even so, she can have the uterus removed after her baby is born. She can give the baby to someone else, but she should not ever kill the baby. Killing another human being has consequences. All women need to know that.


----------



## Moonglow

beautress said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..
> 
> 
> 
> A human being forms in a woman who had sex. It attaches itself to the woman's uterus. That uterus is its home until birth.
> 
> If she doesn't want someone else parking in her uterus for nine months, it won't kill her to wait out nine months. She will be rewarded with a hormone bath that fills her breasts with milk for that baby.
> 
> Even so, she can have the uterus removed after her baby is born. She can give the baby to someone else, but she should not ever kill the baby. Killing another human being has consequences. All women need to know that.
Click to expand...

Yeah you should tell that to all the female soldiers.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dana7360 said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Deism and the Founding Fathers*
> As 'children of the Enlightenment,' many of America's *'Founding Fathers'* were deists. There is much debate among historians over which Founding Fathers were or were not deists. This is because many of the writings of our Founders contain varying degrees of deist thought. It is important to keep in mind that deist thinking was often synthesized with Christianity, and also tended to be vague. So historians often disagree over who was an outright deist, and who was a Christian 'with deist sympathies.' That said, many of our Founders were influenced by deist thinking to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* is generally considered a deist. In fact, he was so skeptical of supernatural occurrences that he took a knife and cut out passages in his Bible that referred to miracles. *'Jefferson's Bible,'* as it has been called, is still around today and belongs to the *Smithsonian Institute.* Benjamin Franklin is also widely believed to have been a deist. *James Madison* is thought to have been a deist, though there is much debate over this. A leading American deist was *Thomas Paine*, writer of _The Age of Reason,_ _Common Sense,_ and many other works. How about George Washington? Debate over his religious views is particularly heated. The truth is that no one is really sure. Washington commonly referred to 'Providence' instead of 'God,' yet he is generally thought to have been an Episcopalian.
> 
> Deism & the Founding Fathers: Definition & Beliefs | Study.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More?
> Sure thing:
> 
> 4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> *
> 
> Let’s start with George Washington.
> 
> Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States.
> 
> Here is Washington at his first Inaugural:
> “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
> In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
> 
> 
> Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”
> 
> Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.
> 
> 
> 6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!
> 
> "*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”
> 
> 
> a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.”
> 
> Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?
> 
> Definitely, no.
> *
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *
> 
> So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”
> 
> As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.
> 
> 
> 
> These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.
> 
> It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *
> 
> 
> It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> 
> And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?
> 
> Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.
> 
> 8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.
> 
> 
> And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
> "The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.
> 
> Maybe three: lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion.
> And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God."
> Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do.
> And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can.
> Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that?
> You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the DoI has four such references.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> 
> And, as I said earlier, the Constitution has a specific reference to Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly does it mention specifically Jesus Christ by his name because all I could find was the word creator. Here's an article about it and this is in it..
> 
> This is not supported by the historical evidence, and the prime exhibits are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, with no explicit mention of God in the Constitution, and one mention of, as Cooper clearly points out, “…*a* god…”, in the Declaration of Independence.
> It's a pretty comprehensive piece and covers about everything...
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Are-the-words-God-Jesus-or-the-Bible-in-the-U-S-Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it doesn't say "a god."
> 
> The original text of the Declaration of Independence uses the words "their Creator, the laws of Nature and Nature's god."
> 
> I don't see any words that are used to describe the christian god.
> 
> A list of grievances follows the words I pasted. I've included a link to the page it came from. This isn't anyone's opinion about what the document says. It's the actual document.
> 
> We all were supposed to have learned what's in that document when we went to school. A full year of US History is required for everyone to be able to graduate from high school. The first quarter of that class is mostly about the revolution, that document and the constitution.
> 
> It's shameful to me that so many conservatives have no clue what's in those documents and what they really mean.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence: Full text
> 
> IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
> 
> 
> hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Click to expand...




"I don't see any words that are used to describe the christian god."


Last line in article seven


See what you've learned today?


----------



## ph3iron

PoliticalChic said:


> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Figures that you'd go to the most RW religious site to try to prove your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that you can't find a single error in the post.....but, like a good German.....er, Liberal.....you refuse to learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already posted an article about it.
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved the opposite....you can check what I said.....
> 
> ....and then, guess again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The opposite of what? The sabbath? Sunday is the first day, not the seventh.
> 
> View attachment 261565Reply
> www.sabbathtruth.com
> The *Sabbath* is commanded by God. Every week religious Jews observe the *Sabbath*, the Jewish holy day, and keep its laws and customs. The *Sabbath* begins at nightfall on Friday and lasts until nightfall on Saturday.Jul 15, 2009
> *BBC - Religions - Judaism: Sabbath*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered why every collectivist doctrine.....Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism and Progressivism.....has such a palpable fear of morality and religion?
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered how many millions of human being....not even counting the million slaughtered via abortion and infanticide......have been murdered by collectivism?
> 
> 
> For comparison, conservatism is based on individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.
> 
> 
> 
> Warning....if this is the first time you have tried to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.
Click to expand...


Talking about thinking, Might help you if you studied Latin and knew the def of liberal.
Latin, liber, free.
For the individual and small gov
All my corporate millionaire buds are proud liberals.
Thought you would be one.??!!
Ps I'm a proud USA millionaire.
I've got mine, screw the rest


----------



## ph3iron

toobfreak said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  In cases where the mother's life is at stake is one thing, otherwise, it ISN'T your body.  You are carrying another life you are responsible for!
> 
> You're supposed to be MOTHER, not MURDERER.
Click to expand...

You're an atheist, right?


----------



## toobfreak

ph3iron said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  In cases where the mother's life is at stake is one thing, otherwise, it ISN'T your body.  You are carrying another life you are responsible for!
> 
> You're supposed to be MOTHER, not MURDERER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an atheist, right?
Click to expand...

Wow.  I rarely see people on this board as wrong as THAT statement!


----------



## Dana7360

SAYIT said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you cling to that silliness is a reflection on you. As the OP noted, it may still be legal but there is no good argument for abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> There's no good argument to save the live of a woman?
> 
> There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy.
> 1. Nothing is done. The woman dies.
> 2. An abortion is performed and the woman lives.
> 
> That's it. Either an abortion is performed or the woman dies.
> 
> You're saying there's no good argument to save the lives of over 65 thousand women in America each year?
> 
> That's what's wrong with you far right wing radical extremists. You're just way too extreme.
> 
> You are one sick person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No where have I stated we should not consider the mama's life first but life-saving abortions are 1% of the 800,000 who are slaughtered and flushed each year. Your argument is shrill, lame, and irrational.
Click to expand...



There is no where that you said that you should consider the life or health of the woman. 

You made a very definite and flat statement. No exceptions. You stated there is no good argument for a woman to have an abortion. Nothing followed it as an exception.

Once I point out how evil and murderous your far right wing radical extremist statement is, you walk it back.

You should think before you post such far right wing radical extremist statements.

Over 65 thousand women in America each year face an ectopic pregnancy. 

It's obvious to me that their lives don't mean anything to you.


----------



## ph3iron

LilOlLady said:


> *Diary of an Unborn Child*
> *Day 1:* *fertilization:* all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.
> 
> *Day 6:*  embryo begins implantation in the uterus.
> 
> *Day 22:*  heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.
> 
> *Week 3:*  By the end of third week the child’s backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming.  The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.
> 
> *Week 4:*  By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.
> 
> *Week 5:*  Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop
> *Week 6:*  Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.
> 
> *Week 7: * Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct.  The baby is kicking and swimming.
> 
> *Week 8:*  Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form.  By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.
> 
> *Weeks 9 and 10:*  Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop.  The baby can turn his head, and frown.  The baby can hiccup.
> 
> *Weeks 10 and 11:*  The baby can “breathe” amniotic fluid and urinate.  Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning.  The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.
> 
> *Week 12: * The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus.  Vocal cords are complete.  The baby can suck its thumb.
> 
> *Week 14:*  At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.
> 
> *Week 15:*  The baby has an adult’s taste buds.
> 
> *Month 4:*  Bone Marrow is now beginning to form.  The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day.  By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will weigh up to half a pound.
> 
> *Week 17:*  The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.
> 
> *Week 19:*  Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.
> 
> *Week 20:*   At 20 weeks the baby recognizes its’ mothers voice. At 20 weeks, the unborn child is capable of f*eeling pain*. This is also the earliest at which partial-birth abortion is performed.
> Diary of an Unborn Child | National Right to Life


Nice cut and paste from religious nut case .
Ever think for yourself?


----------



## PoliticalChic

ph3iron said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that you can't find a single error in the post.....but, like a good German.....er, Liberal.....you refuse to learn from it.
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted an article about it.
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> 
> The US Constitution Founded on the Bible? Guess Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved the opposite....you can check what I said.....
> 
> ....and then, guess again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The opposite of what? The sabbath? Sunday is the first day, not the seventh.
> 
> View attachment 261565Reply
> www.sabbathtruth.com
> The *Sabbath* is commanded by God. Every week religious Jews observe the *Sabbath*, the Jewish holy day, and keep its laws and customs. The *Sabbath* begins at nightfall on Friday and lasts until nightfall on Saturday.Jul 15, 2009
> *BBC - Religions - Judaism: Sabbath*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered why every collectivist doctrine.....Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism and Progressivism.....has such a palpable fear of morality and religion?
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered how many millions of human being....not even counting the million slaughtered via abortion and infanticide......have been murdered by collectivism?
> 
> 
> For comparison, conservatism is based on individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.
> 
> 
> 
> Warning....if this is the first time you have tried to think, you may be subject to an aneurysm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talking about thinking, Might help you if you studied Latin and knew the def of liberal.
> Latin, liber, free.
> For the individual and small gov
> All my corporate millionaire buds are proud liberals.
> Thought you would be one.??!!
> Ps I'm a proud USA millionaire.
> I've got mine, screw the rest
Click to expand...




You're here for an education?

Excellent....and not a moment too soon!


Liberal, as used today, is the name that communist John Dewey talked the Socialist Party into stealing.

Now....take notes, you dunce.



*"Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.* Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, *Dewey initially embraced the term “socialism” to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. “*The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer,” Dewey declared, “is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism. The prejudice against the name may be a regrettable prejudice but its influence is so powerful that it is much more reasonable to imagine all but the most dogmatic Socialists joining a new party than to imagine any considerable part of the American people going over to them.”  Dewey’s influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in the light of this conclusion. 

*....although limited government may once have been the best means of securing individual liberty, its perpetuation in the changed social and economic circumstances of the 20th century would simply ensure liberty’s denial. If contemporary defenders of limited government only realized this, he concludes, they would drop their commitment to limited government and enthusiastically join their fellow “liberals” in expanding the power of the state*. Dewey’s argument has enjoyed a potent legacy in subsequent scholarship, blinding many to what he and his fellow progressives plainly understood: However superficially similar, the founders’ conception of freedom, and the way of living to which it gave rise, differs markedly from the progressive conception of freedom and the more wholly “social” way of living that follows from it.

Dewey’s thought, like that of his fellow progressives generally, was decidedly Hegelian. Even after turning away from Hegelian metaphysics, Dewey retained a significant Hegelian residue."
The Refounding of America | National Review


----------



## ph3iron

LilOlLady said:


> *Diary of an Unborn Child*
> *Day 1:* *fertilization:* all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.
> 
> *Day 6:*  embryo begins implantation in the uterus.
> 
> *Day 22:*  heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.
> 
> *Week 3:*  By the end of third week the child’s backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming.  The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.
> 
> *Week 4:*  By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.
> 
> *Week 5:*  Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop
> *Week 6:*  Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.
> 
> *Week 7: * Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct.  The baby is kicking and swimming.
> 
> *Week 8:*  Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form.  By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.
> 
> *Weeks 9 and 10:*  Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop.  The baby can turn his head, and frown.  The baby can hiccup.
> 
> *Weeks 10 and 11:*  The baby can “breathe” amniotic fluid and urinate.  Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning.  The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.
> 
> *Week 12: * The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus.  Vocal cords are complete.  The baby can suck its thumb.
> 
> *Week 14:*  At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.
> 
> *Week 15:*  The baby has an adult’s taste buds.
> 
> *Month 4:*  Bone Marrow is now beginning to form.  The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day.  By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will weigh up to half a pound.
> 
> *Week 17:*  The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.
> 
> *Week 19:*  Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.
> 
> *Week 20:*   At 20 weeks the baby recognizes its’ mothers voice. At 20 weeks, the unborn child is capable of f*eeling pain*. This is also the earliest at which partial-birth abortion is performed.
> Diary of an Unborn Child | National Right to Life



God, the greatest mass murderer in history?
Did you read the above?


----------



## ph3iron

BlueGin said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you would favor the legal murder of children under the age of, say, 5? Not yet adult, right? Smaller difference, right? Look at the difference between a 2 year old and a 20 year old. Huge!
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not favor murder of humans or other born animals.
> Abortion of unborn humans (fetuses and younger) with full consent by the pregnant female (NOT YOU) is not murder.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and convince yourself of that to live with your immoral position. The taking of innocent life as a matter of convenience is vile murder - _to you_ - under any other circumstances. If one second and one centimeter this way or that in the birth canal indicates or precludes "life" to you, it's time to re-calibrate your moral compass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And join a nutty church perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how much you try to convince yourself or others otherwise. Aborting a baby even up until birth or killing a baby born alive after a botched abortion is murder.
> 
> If you can’t hack that knowledge and have to lie to convince yourself by pretending otherwise sounds like a personal problem.
Click to expand...


I thought woman got pregnant so they could enjoy having an abortion.
You?


----------



## Dana7360

PoliticalChic said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More?
> Sure thing:
> 
> 4. As there is far, far too much evidence for the Judeo-Christian basis of our nation, those on the Left....desiring to adhere to Marx's doctrines....attempt to call the Founders 'deists' to attempt to pry them from being called 'religious.'
> 
> de•ism
> noun
> belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of *a creator who does not intervene in the universe.* The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in *a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. *Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *"The notion that any of the Founders believed in an impersonal deity who merely created the universe and then left it to itself is false. All of them believed in a God who, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, “governs in the affairs of men.”
> *
> 
> Let’s start with George Washington.
> 
> Washington’s writings, both public and private, are full of references to the Bible. This is certainly true during his eight years as the first President of the United States.
> 
> Here is Washington at his first Inaugural:
> “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
> In all likelihood, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
> 
> 
> Like Washington, Benjamin Franklin also referenced Bible verses, stories, and metaphors throughout his life. His calls for prayer at the Constitutional Convention were typical of his attitude. Franklin, who had his own unorthodox views, summed up his faith this way: “*That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life *respecting its conduct in this.”
> 
> Clearly not a view of God ignoring his creations.
> 
> 
> 6. When it comes to John Adams, the Leftwing sophists have a field day!
> 
> "*Adams referred to himself as a Christian throughout his life, but did not believe in traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity or the divinity of Jesus*.... [but] before, during and after his tenure as President, Adams repeatedly asserted his admiration for the Christian faith... Adams spoke of his great respect for the Bible. “[T]he Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my… philosophy than all the libraries I have seen…”
> 
> 
> a. Those who suggest that Adams was in any way against religion like to quote from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, *“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it.”
> 
> Seems to be a perfect spokesman for Marx or Lenin, no?
> 
> Definitely, no.
> *
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those who cite this line never quote *the lines that immediately follow “But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as [the skeptics of religion]. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell.” *
> 
> So, those who quote the first line without quoting the subsequent lines are either unaware of the full comment or are *deliberately misleading people as to Adams’s beliefs." *
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 7. "Like Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not adhere to orthodox doctrine. Yet he often declared himself to be a Christian. “I am a Christian, he said, “in the only sense he [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines...”
> 
> As one of the leaders of the American Revolution, his views are well known. After all, this is the man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You can’t get a much more explicit statement of belief than that.
> 
> 
> 
> These four founders – Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin – were practical men with a sober view of human nature. They understood that man is morally weak and that religion provides the best encouragement and incentive to be good.
> 
> It does so, first and foremost, by teaching that *choices have consequences. Not necessarily in the here and now, but most certainly in the hereafter – meted out by a just God. *
> 
> 
> It should come as no surprise, then, that Jefferson, in his second inaugural, asked for, “The favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land.”
> https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/were-founders-religious
> 
> 
> And all of them were rooted in the Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible.
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Why is it sooooo very important for Leftist to disparage religon?
> 
> Because it is essential to their central doctrine to do so.
> 
> 8. "The concept of atheism is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: *"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, *of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. *The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.*
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. *Morality is the creation of the victor."* The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. The Founders memorialized the very opposite in our founding documents.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence
> 
> 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because *our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, *by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.
> 
> 
> And...despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
> "The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves Leftists with only two choices....deny, or ignore.
> 
> Maybe three: lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion.
> And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God."
> Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do.
> And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can.
> Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that?
> You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the DoI has four such references.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> 
> And, as I said earlier, the Constitution has a specific reference to Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly does it mention specifically Jesus Christ by his name because all I could find was the word creator. Here's an article about it and this is in it..
> 
> This is not supported by the historical evidence, and the prime exhibits are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, with no explicit mention of God in the Constitution, and one mention of, as Cooper clearly points out, “…*a* god…”, in the Declaration of Independence.
> It's a pretty comprehensive piece and covers about everything...
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Are-the-words-God-Jesus-or-the-Bible-in-the-U-S-Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it doesn't say "a god."
> 
> The original text of the Declaration of Independence uses the words "their Creator, the laws of Nature and Nature's god."
> 
> I don't see any words that are used to describe the christian god.
> 
> A list of grievances follows the words I pasted. I've included a link to the page it came from. This isn't anyone's opinion about what the document says. It's the actual document.
> 
> We all were supposed to have learned what's in that document when we went to school. A full year of US History is required for everyone to be able to graduate from high school. The first quarter of that class is mostly about the revolution, that document and the constitution.
> 
> It's shameful to me that so many conservatives have no clue what's in those documents and what they really mean.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence: Full text
> 
> IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
> 
> 
> hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't see any words that are used to describe the christian god."
> 
> 
> Last line in article seven
> 
> 
> See what you've learned today?
Click to expand...



If you weren't so lazy and had actually clicked on the link I provided, the Declaration of Independence isn't broken up into Articles. So I don't know what you're talking about. 

The seventh grievance listed has nothing to do with religion or christianity.

The constitution is broken up into Articles. Article 7 has nothing to do with religion or christianity.

Neither of those 7th contain the word god or any reference to the christian god. 

So you're going to have to do as I have done thus far, prove your claim.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dana7360 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of those links don't work and the third one pretty much just addresses what I said about freedom both from and of religion.
> And, the Declaration of Independence says "creator" not God or Jesus. Many different religions have different names for their "God."
> Maybe we dreaded liberals aren't so much against religion as we are against those that try to shove theirs down our throats. Believe all you want, but don't come on public forums and preach it and attack those that don't think and believe as you do.
> And, you don't even know what I believe because unlike many of you here, I don't publicly discuss it. I mainly don't like any kind of organized religion, and especially the kind that preaches politics from the pulpit. For some reason, they now think they can do it without any repercussions. Maybe it's because now they can.
> Do you honestly want this country to become a theocracy? What if the religion chosen to be the only one is not something you believe in? Will you be good with that?
> You know what they say....beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the DoI has four such references.
> 
> There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> 
> And, as I said earlier, the Constitution has a specific reference to Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly does it mention specifically Jesus Christ by his name because all I could find was the word creator. Here's an article about it and this is in it..
> 
> This is not supported by the historical evidence, and the prime exhibits are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, with no explicit mention of God in the Constitution, and one mention of, as Cooper clearly points out, “…*a* god…”, in the Declaration of Independence.
> It's a pretty comprehensive piece and covers about everything...
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Are-the-words-God-Jesus-or-the-Bible-in-the-U-S-Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it doesn't say "a god."
> 
> The original text of the Declaration of Independence uses the words "their Creator, the laws of Nature and Nature's god."
> 
> I don't see any words that are used to describe the christian god.
> 
> A list of grievances follows the words I pasted. I've included a link to the page it came from. This isn't anyone's opinion about what the document says. It's the actual document.
> 
> We all were supposed to have learned what's in that document when we went to school. A full year of US History is required for everyone to be able to graduate from high school. The first quarter of that class is mostly about the revolution, that document and the constitution.
> 
> It's shameful to me that so many conservatives have no clue what's in those documents and what they really mean.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence: Full text
> 
> IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
> 
> 
> hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't see any words that are used to describe the christian god."
> 
> 
> Last line in article seven
> 
> 
> See what you've learned today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't so lazy and had actually clicked on the link I provided, the Declaration of Independence isn't broken up into Articles. So I don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> The seventh grievance listed has nothing to do with religion or christianity.
> 
> The constitution is broken up into Articles. Article 7 has nothing to do with religion or christianity.
> 
> Neither of those 7th contain the word god or any reference to the christian god.
> 
> So you're going to have to do as I have done thus far, prove your claim.
Click to expand...




Article seven is in the Constitution, you fool.


You should read it one day.


Let's see you quote the last line in article seven.


----------



## Dragonlady

SassyIrishLass said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
Click to expand...


Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.

If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
Click to expand...





 It’s everyone’s business whether you like it or not.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Unkotare said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s everyone’s business whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...


No. No it isn't.


----------



## sparky

especially when ,,,,,


----------



## basquebromance

the KKK murdered thousands of blacks. Planned Parenthood has murdered millions of blacks. let that sink in for a moment!


----------



## Unkotare

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s everyone’s business whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. No it isn't.
Click to expand...



 Open your eyes. Look at all the laws that are being passed lately. Laws reflect the values and social morays of the society in which they are past. If society is viewing abortion shifts, then laws about abortion will also shift. If some ardent pro abortionists here don’t like that, that’s too fucking bad. Some people didn’t like it when social views about gay marriage changed, but they did and now getting marriage is a fact of life. People were still upset about that  have to face reality just like you pro abortion is due. So yes, it is everyone’s business. Similarly, other laws that restrict what we may or may not do with our bodies to the bodies of others are the business of society as a whole. Again, if you don’t like it you can either go live on a deserted island or you can eat shit and except it.


----------



## Unkotare

Strange spelling and syntax are due to the attempted use of talk to text. My apologies to readers who’s eyes may be offended.


----------



## night_son

Unkotare said:


> Strange spelling and syntax are due to the attempted use of talk to text. My apologies to readers who’s eyes may be offended.



I have that same problem all the time but with a handheld app known as White Russians.


----------



## jillian

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


No one cares what you have to say about it

And if it were actually about life and not about subjugating women, why does the Alabama law allow for destruction of embryos from IVF?

Misogynist male theocrats need to STFU


----------



## basquebromance

The women and some good men of this country should not be underestimated. We're going to fight like our lives depend on it—because they do.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
Click to expand...



What sort of moron uses an argument which would allow every sort of crime and abomination????

Raise your paw, moron.



The unborn is not part of the mother's body, hence, she has no such right to murder it.


----------



## SAYIT

Dana7360 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just declare things with no arguments. That's because you have none. This is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is abortion is not murder. That you can't figure that out is a reflection on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you cling to that silliness is a reflection on you. As the OP noted, it may still be legal but there is no good argument for abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> There's no good argument to save the live of a woman?
> 
> There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy.
> 1. Nothing is done. The woman dies.
> 2. An abortion is performed and the woman lives.
> 
> That's it. Either an abortion is performed or the woman dies.
> 
> You're saying there's no good argument to save the lives of over 65 thousand women in America each year?
> 
> That's what's wrong with you far right wing radical extremists. You're just way too extreme.
> 
> You are one sick person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No where have I stated we should not consider the mama's life first but life-saving abortions are 1% of the 800,000 who are slaughtered and flushed each year. Your argument is shrill, lame, and irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no where that you said that you should consider the life or health of the woman.
> 
> You made a very definite and flat statement. No exceptions. You stated there is no good argument for a woman to have an abortion. Nothing followed it as an exception.
> 
> Once I point out how evil and murderous your far right wing radical extremist statement is, you walk it back.
> 
> You should think before you post such far right wing radical extremist statements.
> 
> Over 65 thousand women in America each year face an ectopic pregnancy.
> 
> It's obvious to me that their lives don't mean anything to you.
Click to expand...

Really? I said "no exceptions?" 

Quote me, Liar.


----------



## Dragonlady

Unkotare said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s everyone’s business whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. No it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes. Look at all the laws that are being passed lately. Laws reflect the values and social morays of the society in which they are past. If society is viewing abortion shifts, then laws about abortion will also shift. If some ardent pro abortionists here don’t like that, that’s too fucking bad. Some people didn’t like it when social views about gay marriage changed, but they did and now getting marriage is a fact of life. People were still upset about that  have to face reality just like you pro abortion is due. So yes, it is everyone’s business. Similarly, other laws that restrict what we may or may not do with our bodies to the bodies of others are the business of society as a whole. Again, if you don’t like it you can either go live on a deserted island or you can eat shit and except it.
Click to expand...


Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.  

Society accepts that abortion is a a moral choice.  70% of Americans are in favour of a woman's right to choose.  But the 23% of evangelicals, most of whom vote for Republicans are adamantly opposed to abortion, and Trump, in an effort to pander to that base which he absolutely needs for re-election, is going full bore to ban abortion and guarantee their votes.

This strategy will backfire *BIGLY*, as women, few of whom were inclined to vote for Trump or the Republican Party because of the open and overwhelming misgyny of this Administration, are actively mobilizing to *DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS!*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s everyone’s business whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. No it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes. Look at all the laws that are being passed lately. Laws reflect the values and social morays of the society in which they are past. If society is viewing abortion shifts, then laws about abortion will also shift. If some ardent pro abortionists here don’t like that, that’s too fucking bad. Some people didn’t like it when social views about gay marriage changed, but they did and now getting marriage is a fact of life. People were still upset about that  have to face reality just like you pro abortion is due. So yes, it is everyone’s business. Similarly, other laws that restrict what we may or may not do with our bodies to the bodies of others are the business of society as a whole. Again, if you don’t like it you can either go live on a deserted island or you can eat shit and except it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> Society accepts that abortion is a a moral choice.  70% of Americans are in favour of a woman's right to choose.  But the 23% of evangelicals, most of whom vote for Republicans are adamantly opposed to abortion, and Trump, in an effort to pander to that base which he absolutely needs for re-election, is going full bore to ban abortion and guarantee their votes.
> 
> This strategy will backfire *BIGLY*, as women, few of whom were inclined to vote for Trump or the Republican Party because of the open and overwhelming misgyny of this Administration, are actively mobilizing to *DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS!*
Click to expand...




Is the baby that you choose to murder, part of her body?


Don't be shy.


State your blood-thirsty beliefs.


----------



## Dragonlady

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s everyone’s business whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. No it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes. Look at all the laws that are being passed lately. Laws reflect the values and social morays of the society in which they are past. If society is viewing abortion shifts, then laws about abortion will also shift. If some ardent pro abortionists here don’t like that, that’s too fucking bad. Some people didn’t like it when social views about gay marriage changed, but they did and now getting marriage is a fact of life. People were still upset about that  have to face reality just like you pro abortion is due. So yes, it is everyone’s business. Similarly, other laws that restrict what we may or may not do with our bodies to the bodies of others are the business of society as a whole. Again, if you don’t like it you can either go live on a deserted island or you can eat shit and except it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> Society accepts that abortion is a a moral choice.  70% of Americans are in favour of a woman's right to choose.  But the 23% of evangelicals, most of whom vote for Republicans are adamantly opposed to abortion, and Trump, in an effort to pander to that base which he absolutely needs for re-election, is going full bore to ban abortion and guarantee their votes.
> 
> This strategy will backfire *BIGLY*, as women, few of whom were inclined to vote for Trump or the Republican Party because of the open and overwhelming misgyny of this Administration, are actively mobilizing to *DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the baby that you choose to murder, part of her body?
> 
> 
> Don't be shy.
> 
> 
> State your blood-thirsty beliefs.
Click to expand...


If it's not you vagina, and it's not your pregnancy, is really is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.

When a child is born, the parents have absolutely final decision making ability around medical care for that child.  Parents are allowed to make decisions based on their personal faiths, which lead to the death of that child.  And conservatives have defended letting these children die because to violent these parents' religious beliefs was wrong.

These same conservatives who consider the right to make private medical decisions in life and death circumstances absolute, even if a child medical science has the ability to save, dies, are now saying that women can't make the same decision as to whether or not the child is ever born, long before the child is sentient or viable.

Abortion rights have nothing to do with the unborn, and everything to do with controlling immoral women.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s everyone’s business whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. No it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes. Look at all the laws that are being passed lately. Laws reflect the values and social morays of the society in which they are past. If society is viewing abortion shifts, then laws about abortion will also shift. If some ardent pro abortionists here don’t like that, that’s too fucking bad. Some people didn’t like it when social views about gay marriage changed, but they did and now getting marriage is a fact of life. People were still upset about that  have to face reality just like you pro abortion is due. So yes, it is everyone’s business. Similarly, other laws that restrict what we may or may not do with our bodies to the bodies of others are the business of society as a whole. Again, if you don’t like it you can either go live on a deserted island or you can eat shit and except it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> Society accepts that abortion is a a moral choice.  70% of Americans are in favour of a woman's right to choose.  But the 23% of evangelicals, most of whom vote for Republicans are adamantly opposed to abortion, and Trump, in an effort to pander to that base which he absolutely needs for re-election, is going full bore to ban abortion and guarantee their votes.
> 
> This strategy will backfire *BIGLY*, as women, few of whom were inclined to vote for Trump or the Republican Party because of the open and overwhelming misgyny of this Administration, are actively mobilizing to *DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the baby that you choose to murder, part of her body?
> 
> 
> Don't be shy.
> 
> 
> State your blood-thirsty beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's not you vagina, and it's not your pregnancy, is really is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> When a child is born, the parents have absolutely final decision making ability around medical care for that child.  Parents are allowed to make decisions based on their personal faiths, which lead to the death of that child.  And conservatives have defended letting these children die because to violent these parents' religious beliefs was wrong.
> 
> These same conservatives who consider the right to make private medical decisions in life and death circumstances absolute, even if a child medical science has the ability to save, dies, are now saying that women can't make the same decision as to whether or not the child is ever born, long before the child is sentient or viable.
> 
> Abortion rights have nothing to do with the unborn, and everything to do with controlling immoral women.
Click to expand...




I asked you if the baby was a part of her body.

You ran like the bloodthirsty coward that you are, because you know it is a separate, distinct, unique human being.

At least have the guts to say that convenience.....the reason for almost every abortion....is a good enough reason to kill.



Of course, if it were, you wouldn't last five minutes.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragonlady said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s everyone’s business whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. No it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes. Look at all the laws that are being passed lately. Laws reflect the values and social morays of the society in which they are past. If society is viewing abortion shifts, then laws about abortion will also shift. If some ardent pro abortionists here don’t like that, that’s too fucking bad. Some people didn’t like it when social views about gay marriage changed, but they did and now getting marriage is a fact of life. People were still upset about that  have to face reality just like you pro abortion is due. So yes, it is everyone’s business. Similarly, other laws that restrict what we may or may not do with our bodies to the bodies of others are the business of society as a whole. Again, if you don’t like it you can either go live on a deserted island or you can eat shit and except it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> ...*!*
Click to expand...



 It always has been and always will be everyone’s business regardless of what you want it to be. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the reality.


----------



## Dragonlady

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of moron uses an argument which would allow every sort of crime and abomination????
> 
> Raise your paw, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn is not part of the mother's body, hence, she has no such right to murder it.
Click to expand...


These are not your decisions to make - whether to have a baby, can the mother carry this child, can she raise it, what happens to her other child(ren), her life, her family.  Having a baby is a life commitment, and there are times in our lives when, for any number of reasons, we cannot give another child what they deserve to have to grow up strong and healthy in all regards.  

*YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.*  You are also in no position to force a woman who comes to the painful decision that *she cannot have another child*, to carry that pregnancy forward.  

If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away and you have one child per year until you reach menopause.  How you pay for all of this is up to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



I'm kinda spoiled for choice, since the only abortion argument I didn't find both stupid and laughable was when someone admitted honestly that they thought not only fetuses, but anyone who didn't provide "value" to society had no particular right to exist if they were inconvenient.  THAT one was just plain evil, and likely to wind up on the evening news with the neighbors talking about how "quiet" he seemed, while the coroner drags bodies out of his basement in the background.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of moron uses an argument which would allow every sort of crime and abomination????
> 
> Raise your paw, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn is not part of the mother's body, hence, she has no such right to murder it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are not your decisions to make - whether to have a baby, can the mother carry this child, can she raise it, what happens to her other child(ren), her life, her family.  Having a baby is a life commitment, and there are times in our lives when, for any number of reasons, we cannot give another child what they deserve to have to grow up strong and healthy in all regards.
> 
> *YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.*  You are also in no position to force a woman who comes to the painful decision that *she cannot have another child*, to carry that pregnancy forward.
> 
> If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away and you have one child per year until you reach menopause.  How you pay for all of this is up to you.
Click to expand...




You need another spanking?

Sure.

1.  I've force you to admit that the baby is NOT a part of the mother's body.

2. I've stated the fact that nearly every abortion is for nothing more than 'convenience'....you know, like having your groceries delivered instead of crossing the street to pick them up. Barbaric allusion, huh?

3. It is certainly my business if I belong to a society that I believe should protect human life....not one like your predecessors:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

4. I said nothing about raising the child. Your attempt to change the subject means I win again, huh?
5. "If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away ...."
Wait....you imagine (I almost said 'think') that that sentence makes any sense.

6. "*YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.* "
I believe that even a Democrat knows how that child came to be.
Obviating that cause is close to 100% in the woman's control.



If you need another lesson, I'd be happy to oblige.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Do you seriously think that by making something legal, you make it okay?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



*"Experts Warn Murders Will Just Occur In Back Alleys If Murder Outlawed*
May 15th, 2019






U.S.—Experts on murder rates in the United States have confirmed what we've all long suspected: banning murders is dangerous, because if we do so, murders will just occur in back alleys anyway.

Many states have begun passing laws against shooting, stabbing, or punching other humans to death. At first, this seemed like the obvious, humane thing to do in a civilized society. 

Not so fast, experts say. 

"Here's the problem: if you ban murder, murder will happen anyway," said Dr. Penny Lois, an expert in the field. "People are still going to break the law and murder other people. So the real question is, do we want murders to happen and be safe, legal, and rare, or do we want them to happen in a dark alley somewhere?"

Lois pointed out that it's much safer for the murderer if they're allowed to commit the killing in broad daylight and not behind a dilapidated warehouse in some remote, rural location.

"We need safe and legal murder access for everyone if we really want murder rates to go down in any significant way," she said. "If you outlaw it, it's gonna happen still. And we'd much rather it be done in, say, a brightly lit clinic during the day than behind a dumpster at night."

"It's better for everyone this way---well, except for the victim, but this isn't about the victim."

Experts Warn Murders Will Just Occur In Back Alleys If Murder Outlawed





Gads, you're a dunce.


----------



## Cecilie1200

August West said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as the Abortion Industry unless it`s a privately owned industry. I can`t find their stock listing on the DOW.
Click to expand...


Is that definition of "industry" as "things with DOW stock listings" from the same Leftist Dictionary where "life" is defined as "whatever characteristic of adults I want to arbitrarily require at the moment"?

Planned Parenthood, for all that it masquerades as a non-profit, takes in $164 million a year just from performing abortions; that's not counting the money it takes in from any other clinical income, private donations, and government funds.

So yeah, it's an industry.


----------



## Hellbilly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making something legal, you make it okay?
Click to expand...


It is legal and it’s perfectly okay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cecilie1200

anynameyouwish said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me that conservatives who post "trespassers will be shot" on their property don't really believe that "all life is precious".......
> 
> a woman can't have an abortion but you can murder some poor guy who accidentally steps on your property....
Click to expand...


Seems to me that this is another area where leftists don't share the beliefs, but eagerly attempt to define how they should be exercised . . . because maybe THIS time, they will magically become someone whose opinion matters on the subject.

You think "life is precious" should mean, JUST HAS TO mean, pacifism; We think that what you think doesn't matter, because we don't respect you enough to defend ourselves for your approval.  There is literally no "Aha!" accusation you can ever level at pro-lifers which will make us more immoral than people who are rationalizing millions of unborn children killed.

You can judge me when you aren't arguing in favor of killing unborn babies . . . and I will still reject your moral qualifications to do so.


----------



## SweetSue92

strollingbones said:


>



Dumb meme. She doesn't have to "live with" her "mistake". All she has to do is NOT KILL IT


----------



## SweetSue92

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
Click to expand...


That's the dumbest argument of all. Really, mind-numbingly dumb


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Cecilie1200 said:


> You can judge me when you aren't arguing in favor of killing unborn babies . . . and I will still reject your moral qualifications to do so.



Thus, nothing is ever truly getting resolved and both sides will continue to hate each other with burning passion.* Thanks for nothing.*


----------



## SweetSue92

Cecilie1200 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm kinda spoiled for choice, since the only abortion argument I didn't find both stupid and laughable was when someone admitted honestly that they thought not only fetuses, but anyone who didn't provide "value" to society had no particular right to exist if they were inconvenient.  THAT one was just plain evil, and likely to wind up on the evening news with the neighbors talking about how "quiet" he seemed, while the coroner drags bodies out of his basement in the background.
Click to expand...


I am loathe to say--but will say anyway--that more pro-choicers think this than will admit they think this. Once you veer away from "made in the image God" what is the intrinsic value of human life, after all? There is none. 

Harrowing. But here we are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Abortion isn't safer today for its legality than it was before.  It was the widespread indroduction of penicillin for infections that made it, and a lot of other things, safer.  Truth.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that the baby’s body is for the woman to control.
> 
> 
> 
> It is since it is the woman body which is in control of the fetus, not the other way around..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's biologically unsound and scientifically unsound. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I'm not sure you even know.
> 
> For instance did you know that the hormone that detects pregnancy in home pg tests, HcG is formed in the placenta? That's not "the woman controlling the fetus". It's definitely a mutual process. Additionally, surfactant in the baby's lungs triggers labor--not the mother's body. So you're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fetus must thrive and to thrive it needs a source for energy and development, the mother's body provides the necessities to develop without it it would die.Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course but the fetus contributes to this as well. It's not like a tumor or a parasite, a comparison the sick Left often makes. It IS a unique few months in the development of ALL humans in that the development must take place inside another human. But the science is now settled, as you all love to say. It is a unique human from the beginning and almost from the beginning has a heart, limbs, etc. And as I said, even contributes to its own development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can the child in the womb exist without any help? No..But you claim it can..
Click to expand...


Can the child outside the womb exist without any help?  What's your point?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
Click to expand...


You could waddle your fat ass down here and make me....you'd rue the day you tried. 

Bank that one


----------



## SassyIrishLass

SweetSue92 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the dumbest argument of all. Really, mind-numbingly dumb
Click to expand...


She's inherently stupid and has never met a left loon agenda she hasn't embraced. Just another crazy Canuck


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

SweetSue92 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm kinda spoiled for choice, since the only abortion argument I didn't find both stupid and laughable was when someone admitted honestly that they thought not only fetuses, but anyone who didn't provide "value" to society had no particular right to exist if they were inconvenient.  THAT one was just plain evil, and likely to wind up on the evening news with the neighbors talking about how "quiet" he seemed, while the coroner drags bodies out of his basement in the background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am loathe to say--but will say anyway--that more pro-choicers think this than will admit they think this. Once you veer away from "made in the image God" what is the intrinsic value of human life, after all? There is none.
> 
> Harrowing. But here we are.
Click to expand...


How do you know human life even has intrinsic value? The God argument is the laziest, weakest argument one can give. If you're not even making an effort, why should the 'other side'?


----------



## LilOlLady

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
Click to expand...

With all the money Planned Parenthood and women's doctors are getting they should be giving preventive advice to women....Plan B® comes in a one-pill dose. If taken within 72 hours (3 days) and preferably within 12 hours after a contraceptive accident or unprotected sex, it can prevent pregnancy by doing one of three things:

Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary
Prevents fertilization
Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus
Plan B® is *not an abortion pil*l—if you take plan B®, you will *not be terminating a pregnancy.*


----------



## dblack

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm kinda spoiled for choice, since the only abortion argument I didn't find both stupid and laughable was when someone admitted honestly that they thought not only fetuses, but anyone who didn't provide "value" to society had no particular right to exist if they were inconvenient.  THAT one was just plain evil, and likely to wind up on the evening news with the neighbors talking about how "quiet" he seemed, while the coroner drags bodies out of his basement in the background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am loathe to say--but will say anyway--that more pro-choicers think this than will admit they think this. Once you veer away from "made in the image God" what is the intrinsic value of human life, after all? There is none.
> 
> Harrowing. But here we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know human life even has intrinsic value? The God argument is the laziest, weakest argument one can give. If you're not even making an effort, why should the 'other side'?
Click to expand...


Because this isn't a real issue. It's a distraction for Christians consumed by guilt for supporting a wretched miscreant. Nothing like a self-righteous cause to cure a voter's hangover.


----------



## LilOlLady

I am way past the age of being impregnated but I am never without condoms because there are diseases out there that will kill you. I would even offer a rapist a condom. Absolutely no excuse to have an unwanted pregnancy but complete stupidity.


----------



## LilOlLady

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
Click to expand...

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who *look on and do nothing*. (Albert Einstein)

Our lives begin to end the day we become *silent *about things that matter. (Martin Luther King Jr)

There are times when *silence* becomes an accomplice to injustice (*Ayaan Hirsi Ali)*

*I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever humans endure suffering and humiliation.* We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormenter, never the tormented (Elie Wiesel)

*Silence* in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor and a crime itself. (Ginette Sagan)

If you are *neutral *in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor (Desmond Tutu)

If someone had spoken out Hitler would not have been able to kill 13 million people. Apartheid in South Africa would not have ended and the Civil Rights movement would not have happened and slavery would still be practiced and women parts of the middle east would still be circumcised.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> “Abortion Industry”
> 
> “Not your body”
> 
> “Your BABY'S body”
> 
> “Separate DNA”
> 
> “Abortion is murder”
> 
> “Killing babies”
> 
> These talking points are among the most stupid and laughable, devoid of merit and factually wrong.
Click to expand...


Coming from you, that's a ringing endorsement and a sign that we should continue just as we are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

initforme said:


> All this politicization is going to have more and more women questioning getting pregnant.  Can't say I blame them. Everyone is fighting over what they do. I surely am no fan of abortion so I don't know what the answer is.   The birth rate is the lowest it's been in 42 years from what I have read.  Perhaps this helps things as far as less abortions.  More and more women focusing on careers and money may in the end be a very good thing.  If you aren't sure about wanting kids then simply don't get preggers.  It's not your responsibility to procreate if you don't want to.



Sorry, but as a woman who has had three children throughout the last 30 years, I'm utterly bewildered as to why you assume "everyone fighting over" this is going to make women question getting pregnant.  Might make some women question having sex if they don't want to be pregnant, but why would it have any effect whatsoever on a woman choosing to get pregnant?

And no, a declining birth rate is not a good thing, nor is the increasing self-centeredness of our society in general, and the unwillingness to commit to familial relationships.

I wasn't aware that anyone was being forced or coerced into getting pregnant against their will, as a general rule.  Where is that coming from?


----------



## Cecilie1200

initforme said:


> Adoption fees and red tape can be expensive and overwhelming.  This needs to change.  I know a young couple where the lady had a vasectomy before marriage as she didn't want kids.  So they explored adoption.  They then decided it was too expensive and the process cut too much into their free time.



Dude, a vasectomy is an operation which can only be performed on men.  I think you mean a tubal ligation.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adoption fees and red tape can be expensive and overwhelming.  This needs to change.  I know a young couple where the lady had a vasectomy before marriage as she didn't want kids.  So they explored adoption.  They then decided it was too expensive and the process cut too much into their free time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, a vasectomy is an operation which can only be performed on men.  I think you mean a tubal ligation.
Click to expand...


Maybe she just "identified" as a lady.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then our society needs to stand up and provide these women a better choice than abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the right it’s not about ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the politics of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not coming to an end in America. Don’t like it? Move to Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who, you ????? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Americans. A vast majority want it available under some conditions. Plus, some states have passed laws permitted it; meaning abortion would still be legal and available to women in those states even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned.
Click to expand...


The vast majority want it available IN EMERGENCIES.  You know, those hard cases that make up 1% of abortions which you dishonest poltroons shamelessly hide behind.

But yes, you are correct that there will always be pockets of amoral people clustered together.


----------



## initforme

A declining birth rate can be the result of several factors.   First, more women want materialistic things and don't want kids.  Wages being down combined with the rising prices of everything else prevents many from having kids perhaps.  A growing number of single working females who choose not to ever marry?  Smaller families because bigger ones are unaffordable?   Lots of factors.


----------



## beagle9

Dragonlady said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find ALL of the anti-abortion talking points to be both stupid and laughable, but not in any way funny.
> 
> The very idea that YOUR beliefs about the sanctity of fetal life, none of which have ANY basis in biology, or reality, should govern how the rest of us live, is laughable.
> 
> Neither a zygote nor a fetus are babies. Babies can live and breathe on their own without benefit of a host.
> 
> God gave women choice in having babies. He recognized that timing is critical to the survival of the species. Being pregnant in times of war, or famine, or migration could lead to the death of both mother and child, or hardships for families so God gave us an out for bad timing.  He could have made pregnancy absolute but He didn’t.
> 
> God gave us choice. You idiots would take it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And God gave the people in this world enough sense to know wrong when they see it, and killing innocent defenseless babies while in the womb is as wrong as it gets. No matter how the left cuts it or spins it, they are wrong in supporting the killing of babies in the womb. The corporate killing machine for profit must be stopped along with it's propaganda machine powered by the deep state etc.  Trump is on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more profitable to the medical industrial complex for the woman to carry the child and deliver it.  Pre-natal care, confinement and delivery, and post natal are generate far more income than an abortion.
Click to expand...

Profit from death is way worse than anything else. No comparison.


----------



## beagle9

You know, if you follow these threads that expose the dishonesty of the left, you can easily get the pattern of the leftist talking points, their desperation, their deceptive tactics, their convoluted excuse making, their next move, and not only do they do it with this abortion issue, but it's the same pattern with all the issues.


----------



## Unkotare

SassyIrishLass said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could waddle your fat ass down here and make me....you'd rue the day you tried.
> 
> Bank that one
Click to expand...



Oh brother, now we have the "tough girl" version of the same stupidity so many men feel compelled to spew on the internet? Unnecessary. Calm down.


----------



## Flopper

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


*Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*


----------



## Leo123

Flopper said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
Click to expand...


OR carry a gun and don't make bad relationship decisions.   In short, respect and protect your body.


----------



## Flopper

Billyboom said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The misconception is that if you make abortion illegal, it will go away.  The day it becomes illegal, the abortion pill (mifepristone and misoprostol) will become available through your neighborhood drug dealer.  Thousands of women across the country will suffer complications and many will die because it needs to be administered in a medical facility.  Just like it was 50 years ago, the fine upstanding members of the community that would never tolerate abortion in their city will hustle their pregnant teenage daughters off to medical facilities out of state for safe secret abortion.


----------



## Crixus

Flopper said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The misconception is that if you make abortion illegal, it will go away.  The day it becomes illegal, the abortion pill (mifepristone and misoprostol) will become available through your neighborhood drug dealer.  Thousands of women across the country will suffer complications and many will die because it needs to be administered in a medical facility.  Just like it was 50 years ago, the fine upstanding members of the community that would never tolerate abortion in their city will hustle their pregnant teenage daughters off to medical facilities out of state for safe secret abortion.
Click to expand...



Pfft, that pill. Oh are talking about? You can buy it at Walmart.


----------



## LilOlLady

Flopper said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
Click to expand...

No one wants your pathetic body, they just want to stop you from killing your own child. You should thank them. How many abortions are done because of rape? I would believe just a fraction of those who are aborted. If you are not interested in protecting yourself, please demand the man to wear a condom. And if he is any kind of man at all he will not protest. You are in control of your body.


----------



## LilOlLady

Why is there not a movement and laws stating "Woman's Right to Contraception" No talk of preventive measures by any of those pushing Pro-Choice? Not one sign urging women to use contraception in the many protests across the country. There should be a law making it a crime for a woman not to use contraception. Every woman should have access to free contraception. We give free needles to drug addicts. Would be cheaper than abortions. 
Benjamin Franklin — 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'


----------



## Crixus

LilOlLady said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one wants your pathetic body, they just want to stop you from killing your own child. You should thank them. How many abortions are done because of rape? I would believe just a fraction of those who are aborted. If you are not interested in protecting yourself, please demand the man to wear a condom. And if he is any kind of man at all he will not protest. You are in control of your body.
Click to expand...



Not to many. Rape victims are taken care of pretty fast.


----------



## dblack

LilOlLady said:


> No one wants your pathetic body, they just want to stop you from killing your own child.



This is why I think conservatives are no different than liberals - all bent out of shape worrying about other people's children. MYOFB


----------



## Flopper

Leo123 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR carry a gun and don't make bad relationship decisions.   In short, respect and protect your body.
Click to expand...

Women will continue to get pregnant out of wedlock as they have done for thousands of years.  Men will continue to rape women and force their wives into sex.  Women will forget their birth control pills and condoms will fail.  And couples will make poor decision in the heat of passion.  If you believe passing a law will change that, you're deluding yourself.


----------



## Leo123

Flopper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR carry a gun and don't make bad relationship decisions.   In short, respect and protect your body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women will continue to get pregnant out of wedlock as they have done for thousands of years.  Men will continue to rape women and force their wives into sex.  Women will forget their birth control pills and condoms will fail.  And couples will make poor decision in the heat of passion.  If you believe passing a law will change that, you're deluding yourself.
Click to expand...


Yeah so let's just give up an kill the children.


----------



## Flopper

Crixus said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The misconception is that if you make abortion illegal, it will go away.  The day it becomes illegal, the abortion pill (mifepristone and misoprostol) will become available through your neighborhood drug dealer.  Thousands of women across the country will suffer complications and many will die because it needs to be administered in a medical facility.  Just like it was 50 years ago, the fine upstanding members of the community that would never tolerate abortion in their city will hustle their pregnant teenage daughters off to medical facilities out of state for safe secret abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pfft, that pill. Oh are talking about? You can buy it at Walmart.
Click to expand...

The morning after pill can be bought over the counter but it's only effective for few days after conception.  The abortion pill is different.  It's actually two different medication.  I has be given in a medical facility because there can be very dangerous complications.


----------



## Flopper

Leo123 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR carry a gun and don't make bad relationship decisions.   In short, respect and protect your body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women will continue to get pregnant out of wedlock as they have done for thousands of years.  Men will continue to rape women and force their wives into sex.  Women will forget their birth control pills and condoms will fail.  And couples will make poor decision in the heat of passion.  If you believe passing a law will change that, you're deluding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah so let's just give up an kill the children.
Click to expand...

No, you do more of what we doing today which is working.  Abortions last year were half of what they were at their peak in 1990.  More sex education in high school and free birth control, and free morning after pills.  We will always need abortion in cases of serious health risks for the mother and victims of rape and incest, however that is a low percent of abortions.

Unfortunately we're going in the opposite direction, shutting down plan parenthood who provides free birth control.  Conservatives are demanding less sex education, banning the morning after pill, and keeping those birth control pills away from their precious daughters who might be encourage to have sex.


----------



## Crixus

Flopper said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The misconception is that if you make abortion illegal, it will go away.  The day it becomes illegal, the abortion pill (mifepristone and misoprostol) will become available through your neighborhood drug dealer.  Thousands of women across the country will suffer complications and many will die because it needs to be administered in a medical facility.  Just like it was 50 years ago, the fine upstanding members of the community that would never tolerate abortion in their city will hustle their pregnant teenage daughters off to medical facilities out of state for safe secret abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pfft, that pill. Oh are talking about? You can buy it at Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The morning after pill can be bought over the counter but it's only effective for few days after conception.  The abortion pill is different.  It's actually two different medication.  I has be given in a medical facility because there can be very dangerous complications.
Click to expand...



Then if a person is selling that on the street then they need to go to jail.


----------



## Leo123

Flopper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR carry a gun and don't make bad relationship decisions.   In short, respect and protect your body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women will continue to get pregnant out of wedlock as they have done for thousands of years.  Men will continue to rape women and force their wives into sex.  Women will forget their birth control pills and condoms will fail.  And couples will make poor decision in the heat of passion.  If you believe passing a law will change that, you're deluding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah so let's just give up an kill the children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you do more of what we doing today which is working.  Abortions last year were half of what they were at their peak in 1990.  More sex education in high school and free birth control, and free morning after pills.  We will always need abortion in cases of serious health risks for the mother and victims of rape and incest, however that is a low percent of abortions.
> 
> Unfortunately we're going in the opposite direction, shutting down plan parenthood who provides free birth control.  Conservatives are demanding less sex education, banning the morning after pill, and keeping those birth control pills away from their precious daughters who might be encourage to have sex.
Click to expand...


I don't consider making infants 'comfortable' just out of the womb until the mother decides whether or not to kill that helpless human 'working.'   Planned Parenthood encourages a woman to have an abortion.   In fact, PP's main revenue comes from abortions and blacks, by far, have the most abortions.  Just like PP's founder planned.   Even the name 'Planned Parenthood' is a sick joke.  It's more like planned infanticide.   Phrases like 'Women's reproductive health' are misnomers as well because abortion has nothing to do with reproduction.  As far as sex education, people are getting tired of our kids being assaulted by transgender crap.  One school went so far as to bring in drag queens which is totally insane.   Birth control works WHEN USED however with all the cheap and free birth control available, why are there so many abortions?   Think about it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of moron uses an argument which would allow every sort of crime and abomination????
> 
> Raise your paw, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn is not part of the mother's body, hence, she has no such right to murder it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are not your decisions to make - whether to have a baby, can the mother carry this child, can she raise it, what happens to her other child(ren), her life, her family.
Click to expand...


It may or may not be solely a woman’s decision to make but don’t you think she should consider these things _before _having unprotected sex? The man too for that matter?



> Having a baby is a life commitment, and there are times in our lives when, for any number of reasons, we cannot give another child what they deserve to have to grow up strong and healthy in all regards.



So having a baby is a life commitment but getting pregnant is not? How does that work since a baby is a natural outcome of conception and pregnancy?

That’s really what we’re talking about here: interrupting the course of nature. 

Consider this: A common pro-choice argument is that a fetus is not a person or human being. So what if, instead of aborting the fetus, we go in and cut off one or more limbs and it is born a quadraplegic? This would be considered exceptionally cruel, would it not? So why would aborting the fetus be any less cruel or wrong?


----------



## Vandalshandle

I think that is touching that some people do not approve of abortions, and, by god, I will fight for their right not to have one!


----------



## there4eyeM

So much hypocrisy piled into one topic. People want to control vulnerable young women in the U.S., but have no problem with the taxes paid that the U.S. uses to kill babies all over the world.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

there4eyeM said:


> So much hypocrisy piled into one topic. People want to control vulnerable young women in the U.S., but have no problem with the taxes paid that the U.S. uses to kill babies all over the world.








Which tax dollars would those be?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## ninja007

initforme said:


> All this politicization is going to have more and more women questioning getting pregnant.  Can't say I blame them. Everyone is fighting over what they do. I surely am no fan of abortion so I don't know what the answer is.   _*The birth rate is the lowest it's been in 42 years*_ from what I have read.  Perhaps this helps things as far as less abortions.  More and more women focusing on careers and money may in the end be a very good thing.  If you aren't sure about wanting kids then simply don't get preggers.  It's not your responsibility to procreate if you don't want to.



for whites yes for muslims its prob 5 kids per family. And thats the plan. Wake the hell up.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s everyone’s business whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. No it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes. Look at all the laws that are being passed lately. Laws reflect the values and social morays of the society in which they are past. If society is viewing abortion shifts, then laws about abortion will also shift. If some ardent pro abortionists here don’t like that, that’s too fucking bad. Some people didn’t like it when social views about gay marriage changed, but they did and now getting marriage is a fact of life. People were still upset about that  have to face reality just like you pro abortion is due. So yes, it is everyone’s business. Similarly, other laws that restrict what we may or may not do with our bodies to the bodies of others are the business of society as a whole. Again, if you don’t like it you can either go live on a deserted island or you can eat shit and except it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> Society accepts that abortion is a a moral choice.  70% of Americans are in favour of a woman's right to choose.  But the 23% of evangelicals, most of whom vote for Republicans are adamantly opposed to abortion, and Trump, in an effort to pander to that base which he absolutely needs for re-election, is going full bore to ban abortion and guarantee their votes.
> 
> This strategy will backfire *BIGLY*, as women, few of whom were inclined to vote for Trump or the Republican Party because of the open and overwhelming misgyny of this Administration, are actively mobilizing to *DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS!*
Click to expand...


----------



## LilOlLady

Flopper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR carry a gun and don't make bad relationship decisions.   In short, respect and protect your body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women will continue to get pregnant out of wedlock as they have done for thousands of years.  Men will continue to rape women and force their wives into sex.  Women will forget their birth control pills and condoms will fail.  And couples will make poor decision in the heat of passion.  If you believe passing a law will change that, you're deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

We have many laws that do not deter criminal actions but we do not do away with those laws. Laws against drunk driving and doing illicit and illegal drugs. Driving without a license or insurance. Immigration laws. Abortions laws for or against. *If* a *country will* not have *laws* and order then it *will* be real hard *to* govern it . people may kill each other as *there will* be *no* reason *to* arrest him or something. A place without any *law* and order *could* be dangerous for anyone as his/her rights *can easily* be violated. Even if laws like abortion laws are passed there have to be limitations.


----------



## LilOlLady

If you use your body to do recreational drugs while you are pregnant and it affects your unborn it is a crime if your baby is born addicted to drugs. You can be charged and lose your baby. When you become pregnant your body is a host and you chose to get pregnant when you chose to have sex. That unborn child depends on your body for life-sustaining oxygen and nourishment. Your body is not yours alone when you are pregnant. A woman is life support for that unborn child and a woman owes it to that unborn because it is because of your actions that it is in your body. A woman's body is a host. A putrid dish. Life support system. It is the way nature planned it and did not plan it to be aborted. Fuck with mother nature and mother nature will turn on you. This planet was given to us humans and we are misusing it against nature and we are seeing the results. Abortions are not a natural process.
A bulb if cut off the plant will die because it is cut off from the roots of the plant that provide food to come to full bloom.


----------



## LilOlLady

dblack said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants your pathetic body, they just want to stop you from killing your own child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I think conservatives are no different than liberals - all bent out of shape *worrying about other people's children*. MYOFB
Click to expand...

Worrying about children? Children are killed, kidnapped, raped and used in sex trafficking  daily and you want the world to MIOFB? The *Child* Abuse Prevention and Treatment *Act* (CAPTA), passed by the federal government in 1974 and reauthorized in 2010, is the largest body of *legislation* with regard to the fair, ethical, and legal treatment of *children* and is intended to keep them free from all forms of abuse including physical, sexual, emotional, ...Child Protective Services.?


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adoption fees and red tape can be expensive and overwhelming.  This needs to change.  I know a young couple where the lady had a vasectomy before marriage as she didn't want kids.  So they explored adoption.  They then decided it was too expensive and the process cut too much into their free time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, a vasectomy is an operation which can only be performed on men.  I think you mean a tubal ligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe she just "identified" as a lady.
Click to expand...


These days, who can tell?  But if that's the case, unless his/her/its partner had a uterus and ovaries, no surgery was necessary to prevent reproduction.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
Click to expand...


Let me get right on worrying about how a man tells me I'm supposed to feel as a woman.

. . . And I'm done.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The misconception is that if you make abortion illegal, it will go away.  The day it becomes illegal, the abortion pill (mifepristone and misoprostol) will become available through your neighborhood drug dealer.  Thousands of women across the country will suffer complications and many will die because it needs to be administered in a medical facility.  Just like it was 50 years ago, the fine upstanding members of the community that would never tolerate abortion in their city will hustle their pregnant teenage daughters off to medical facilities out of state for safe secret abortion.
Click to expand...


The misconception is that we believe that making abortion illegal will make it go away.

The reality is that we know restricting it will greatly decrease the number of abortions, and also the number of unwanted pregnancies in general.

Only leftists ever dawdle around with silly concepts about laws completely eliminating a behavior.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, if you're in Alabama, It's not your body.  It belongs to the state.  If you're a victim of rape, incest, or a husband who forces himself on you, your options are bear the child of the rapist, find a back alley abortionist, or get the fuck out of this state and go to a state where people live in the 21st century, where parents have children because they love and want.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR carry a gun and don't make bad relationship decisions.   In short, respect and protect your body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women will continue to get pregnant out of wedlock as they have done for thousands of years.  Men will continue to rape women and force their wives into sex.  Women will forget their birth control pills and condoms will fail.  And couples will make poor decision in the heat of passion.  If you believe passing a law will change that, you're deluding yourself.
Click to expand...


If you believe that they will do it in the insane numbers they're doing it now (well, excepting rape), YOU are deluding yourself.


----------



## Dragonlady

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of moron uses an argument which would allow every sort of crime and abomination????
> 
> Raise your paw, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn is not part of the mother's body, hence, she has no such right to murder it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are not your decisions to make - whether to have a baby, can the mother carry this child, can she raise it, what happens to her other child(ren), her life, her family.  Having a baby is a life commitment, and there are times in our lives when, for any number of reasons, we cannot give another child what they deserve to have to grow up strong and healthy in all regards.
> 
> *YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.*  You are also in no position to force a woman who comes to the painful decision that *she cannot have another child*, to carry that pregnancy forward.
> 
> If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away and you have one child per year until you reach menopause.  How you pay for all of this is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need another spanking?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 1.  I've force you to admit that the baby is NOT a part of the mother's body.
> 
> 2. I've stated the fact that nearly every abortion is for nothing more than 'convenience'....you know, like having your groceries delivered instead of crossing the street to pick them up. Barbaric allusion, huh?
> 
> 3. It is certainly my business if I belong to a society that I believe should protect human life....not one like your predecessors:
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 4. I said nothing about raising the child. Your attempt to change the subject means I win again, huh?
> 5. "If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away ...."
> Wait....you imagine (I almost said 'think') that that sentence makes any sense.
> 
> 6. "*YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.* "
> I believe that even a Democrat knows how that child came to be.
> Obviating that cause is close to 100% in the woman's control.
> 
> 
> 
> If you need another lesson, I'd be happy to oblige.
Click to expand...


1.  You're an idiot who has fastasies of thought that have no basis in fact.  The baby is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, UNLESS IT'S IN YOUR VAGINA.*

2.  Your *belief* has no basis or validity in fact or in practice.  Try using facts to support your eroneous conclusions.  I guess it's just a total accident that 80% of all women who have abortions are living at or below the poverty line.  And poor married couples who already have one or more children just can't be bothered to have more children.

3.  So women who are pregnant have no right at all to determine who many children they should have.  You're saying the state has total right to determine the size of my family.  Then the state had better be prepared to provide the income, food, clothing and shelter to raise those children women are being forced to have to their benefit.

4.  You're prepared to have poor women give birth to a million more babies every year that they have no means to provide for, and you choose to ignore the realities of what that ban would mean.  I've seen what happens when women have no legal abortions available.  You can't say "no abortions" and pretend that there are no economic consequences to the country to such a decision.

5.  When you resort to insults, it represents the total dearth of a response.  

6.  Sex has other physical and emotion purposes than just procreation.  Withholding sex is grounds for divorce.  Conservatives always come back to "just say no" as a solution to abortion.  Talk about controlling our lives and not in a good way.  No sex for poor people.  Yeah, that'll work.

None of your responses get past the idea that *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.*

*ABORTION IS A MATTER BETWEEN A WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR.  IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *


----------



## Cecilie1200

there4eyeM said:


> So much hypocrisy piled into one topic. People want to control vulnerable young women in the U.S., but have no problem with the taxes paid that the U.S. uses to kill babies all over the world.



So much hypocrisy piled into one post.  People want to accuse the US of "killing babies all over the world" in order to excuse and justify the US killing babies at home, which they apparently champion in the names of women they want to characterize as ignorant victims who need big, strong men to protect their right to fuck those men and then destroy the evidence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of moron uses an argument which would allow every sort of crime and abomination????
> 
> Raise your paw, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn is not part of the mother's body, hence, she has no such right to murder it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are not your decisions to make - whether to have a baby, can the mother carry this child, can she raise it, what happens to her other child(ren), her life, her family.  Having a baby is a life commitment, and there are times in our lives when, for any number of reasons, we cannot give another child what they deserve to have to grow up strong and healthy in all regards.
> 
> *YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.*  You are also in no position to force a woman who comes to the painful decision that *she cannot have another child*, to carry that pregnancy forward.
> 
> If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away and you have one child per year until you reach menopause.  How you pay for all of this is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need another spanking?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 1.  I've force you to admit that the baby is NOT a part of the mother's body.
> 
> 2. I've stated the fact that nearly every abortion is for nothing more than 'convenience'....you know, like having your groceries delivered instead of crossing the street to pick them up. Barbaric allusion, huh?
> 
> 3. It is certainly my business if I belong to a society that I believe should protect human life....not one like your predecessors:
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 4. I said nothing about raising the child. Your attempt to change the subject means I win again, huh?
> 5. "If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away ...."
> Wait....you imagine (I almost said 'think') that that sentence makes any sense.
> 
> 6. "*YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.* "
> I believe that even a Democrat knows how that child came to be.
> Obviating that cause is close to 100% in the woman's control.
> 
> 
> 
> If you need another lesson, I'd be happy to oblige.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  You're an idiot who has fastasies of thought that have no basis in fact.  The baby is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, UNLESS IT'S IN YOUR VAGINA.*
> 
> 2.  Your *belief* has no basis or validity in fact or in practice.  Try using facts to support your eroneous conclusions.  I guess it's just a total accident that 80% of all women who have abortions are living at or below the poverty line.  And poor married couples who already have one or more children just can't be bothered to have more children.
> 
> 3.  So women who are pregnant have no right at all to determine who many children they should have.  You're saying the state has total right to determine the size of my family.  Then the state had better be prepared to provide the income, food, clothing and shelter to raise those children women are being forced to have to their benefit.
> 
> 4.  You're prepared to have poor women give birth to a million more babies every year that they have no means to provide for, and you choose to ignore the realities of what that ban would mean.  I've seen what happens when women have no legal abortions available.  You can't say "no abortions" and pretend that there are no economic consequences to the country to such a decision.
> 
> 5.  When you resort to insults, it represents the total dearth of a response.
> 
> 6.  Sex has other physical and emotion purposes than just procreation.  Withholding sex is grounds for divorce.  Conservatives always come back to "just say no" as a solution to abortion.  Talk about controlling our lives and not in a good way.  No sex for poor people.  Yeah, that'll work.
> 
> None of your responses get past the idea that *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.*
> 
> *ABORTION IS A MATTER BETWEEN A WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR.  IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
Click to expand...





1. What does abortion and infanticide have to do with a vagina, you dolt?????

2. You couldn't deny that the unborn is not a part of the woman's body.....hence it is murder of another human being.

3."So women who are pregnant have no right at all to determine who (sic) many children they should have."
They have every right, and every responsibility for whether or not they have children: don't be part of the act that produces children.
You know how that works, don't you, ugly?

4."I've seen what happens when women have no legal abortions available."

*"Experts Warn Murders Will Just Occur In Back Alleys If Murder Outlawed*
May 15th, 2019





U.S.—Experts on murder rates in the United States have confirmed what we've all long suspected: banning murders is dangerous, because if we do so, murders will just occur in back alleys anyway."
Experts Warn Murders Will Just Occur In Back Alleys If Murder Outlawed



5. "Try using facts to support your eroneous (sic) conclusions. "

I am to facts what McDonald's is to hamburgers.

Abortion in the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.

Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.


----------



## PoliticalChic

While I expect the war against the savagery of abortion and infanticide to be won, I don't expect it to be won at the Supreme Court.


Rather, as the ability of medical technology advances, and babies can live at earlier ages, the age of survivability goes down.

On that basis, the murders will no longer be allowed, and we'll have to suffer through Democrat/Liberal tears.


* “Babies are surviving and thriving at ever younger pre-term ages when given appropriate care and treatment*


Survival of extremely preterm infants has increased significantly as doctors realize the advantages of active care for such young patients. The ages of survival have dropped from 28 weeks to 24 weeks and now less than 22 weeks.[25]

Groundbreaking _New England Journal of Medicine_ study demonstrated that babies delivered as young as 22 weeks can survive, and active intervention for treatment greatly improves their survival.[26]

An NIH-funded study of infants who were delivered at 22-24 weeks and who received active treatment observed increasing rates of survival without any neurological impairment. Yet, three-fourths of those delivered at 22 weeks still received no active care.[27]

60% of infants born at 22 weeks who receive active hospital treatment will survive.[28]"
Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain | Charlotte Lozier Institute



*Is it possible the forces of evil can be held back to a 3 or 4 weeks limit on abortions?* 

Can politicians be convinced that *babies can survive* out of the womb at 20 or 21 weeks?




“…this has been interpreted to be after 21 weeks of pregnancy. Since a fetus cannot survive before this point and abortion is illegal after, Democrats claim born-alive legislation is wholly unnecessary.

_Only a fetus can survive before this point._

In 2014, San Antonio native Courtney Stensrud was 21 weeks and four days pregnant when she gave birth to a baby girl whose “skin was so thin, it was nearly see-through” and whose breathing was so faint it was barely detectable. _USA Today _reported: "In these situations, doctors don’t recommend resuscitation. But, when Stensrud looked at [her neonatologist Kaashif] Ahmad through tears and asked him to try, Ahmad did.

"'If you’d like us to try, I’m willing to try,' Ahmad said.

"When doctors placed a breathing tube into her airway, the baby that was once blue turned pink."

*She is now a healthy preschooler." *
https://townhall.com/columnists/danodonnell/2019/05/15/why-wisconsin-gov-evers-born-alive-v eto-pledge-is-wrong-n2546380 








_Democrats may have to demand the right to kill actual adults….._


----------



## MindWars

*Rape and Sexual Assault in the Abortion Industry*
Our new report, _“America’s Carefully Hidden Sex Scandal”_, proves that one of the darkest and best-kept secrets in America is that women are sometimes raped or sexually assaulted inside the clinics where they go for abortions.* In fact, it’s unlikely that there’s any other business in the country where a woman is as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than in an abortion clinic.*

BUSTED! The Abortion Industry - Life Dynamics


WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A MORON.


----------



## Dragonlady

MindWars said:


> *Rape and Sexual Assault in the Abortion Industry*
> Our new report, _“America’s Carefully Hidden Sex Scandal”_, proves that one of the darkest and best-kept secrets in America is that women are sometimes raped or sexually assaulted inside the clinics where they go for abortions.* In fact, it’s unlikely that there’s any other business in the country where a woman is as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than in an abortion clinic.*
> 
> BUSTED! The Abortion Industry - Life Dynamics
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A MORON.



When I don’t want to be a moron I avoid websites that have an agenda and a bias like the antia-abortion website you linked to. The anto-abortion side does nothing but lie because the truth is not on their side and never has been. 

They’re only in favour of forcing women to have babies but aren’t dealing with issues like the rate of infant mortality in America, or maternal death in childbirth. The USA has the highest rates of both in the first world. Real women and babies are dying and conservatives don’t care and are trying to shut down Planned Parenthood which does.   

Campaign life your names lie you don’t care if women die


----------



## LilOlLady

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of moron uses an argument which would allow every sort of crime and abomination????
> 
> Raise your paw, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn is not part of the mother's body, hence, she has no such right to murder it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are not your decisions to make - whether to have a baby, can the mother carry this child, can she raise it, what happens to her other child(ren), her life, her family.  Having a baby is a life commitment, and there are times in our lives when, for any number of reasons, we cannot give another child what they deserve to have to grow up strong and healthy in all regards.
> 
> *YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.*  You are also in no position to force a woman who comes to the painful decision that *she cannot have another child*, to carry that pregnancy forward.
> 
> If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away and you have one child per year until you reach menopause.  How you pay for all of this is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need another spanking?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 1.  I've force you to admit that the baby is NOT a part of the mother's body.
> 
> 2. I've stated the fact that nearly every abortion is for nothing more than 'convenience'....you know, like having your groceries delivered instead of crossing the street to pick them up. Barbaric allusion, huh?
> 
> 3. It is certainly my business if I belong to a society that I believe should protect human life....not one like your predecessors:
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 4. I said nothing about raising the child. Your attempt to change the subject means I win again, huh?
> 5. "If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away ...."
> Wait....you imagine (I almost said 'think') that that sentence makes any sense.
> 
> 6. "*YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.* "
> I believe that even a Democrat knows how that child came to be.
> Obviating that cause is close to 100% in the woman's control.
> 
> 
> 
> If you need another lesson, I'd be happy to oblige.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  You're an idiot who has fastasies of thought that have no basis in fact.  The baby is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, UNLESS IT'S IN YOUR VAGINA.*
> 
> 2.  Your *belief* has no basis or validity in fact or in practice.  Try using facts to support your eroneous conclusions.  I guess it's just a total accident that 80% of all women who have abortions are living at or below the poverty line.  And poor married couples who already have one or more children just can't be bothered to have more children.
> 
> 3.  So women who are pregnant have no right at all to determine who many children they should have.  You're saying the state has total right to determine the size of my family.  Then the state had better be prepared to provide the income, food, clothing and shelter to raise those children women are being forced to have to their benefit.
> 
> 4.  You're prepared to have poor women give birth to a million more babies every year that they have no means to provide for, and you choose to ignore the realities of what that ban would mean.  I've seen what happens when women have no legal abortions available.  You can't say "no abortions" and pretend that there are no economic consequences to the country to such a decision.
> 
> 5.  When you resort to insults, it represents the total dearth of a response.
> 
> 6.  Sex has other physical and emotion purposes than just procreation.  Withholding sex is grounds for divorce.  Conservatives always come back to "just say no" as a solution to abortion.  Talk about controlling our lives and not in a good way.  No sex for poor people.  Yeah, that'll work.
> 
> None of your responses get past the idea that *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.*
> 
> *ABORTION IS A MATTER BETWEEN A WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR.  IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
Click to expand...

What part of *BIRTH CONTROL *do you not understand?  *98% of the time it work*s and if it were used we would not have the number of* unwanted pregnancies and abortions* that we have. 17,000 on an average week. We can control *mosquitoes* from getting pregnant, we can certainly control you from getting pregnant. In Nevada* wild horses* are given birth control.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rape and Sexual Assault in the Abortion Industry*
> Our new report, _“America’s Carefully Hidden Sex Scandal”_, proves that one of the darkest and best-kept secrets in America is that women are sometimes raped or sexually assaulted inside the clinics where they go for abortions.* In fact, it’s unlikely that there’s any other business in the country where a woman is as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than in an abortion clinic.*
> 
> BUSTED! The Abortion Industry - Life Dynamics
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A MORON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I don’t want to be a moron I avoid websites that have an agenda and a bias like the antia-abortion website you linked to. The anto-abortion side does nothing but lie because the truth is not on their side and never has been.
> 
> They’re only in favour of forcing women to have babies but aren’t dealing with issues like the rate of infant mortality in America, or maternal death in childbirth. The USA has the highest rates of both in the first world. Real women and babies are dying and conservatives don’t care and are trying to shut down Planned Parenthood which does.
> 
> Campaign life your names lie you don’t care if women die
Click to expand...


When you don't want to be a moron, you pretty much just have to sit and cry in despair, because it's unavoidable for you.

As always, there's no false accusation you can bitterly hurl at us that will make as immoral and evil as people who are trying to excuse killing unborn babies.

"You don't care if women die . . . even though I can't actually explain what deaths I'm babbling about.  Just ignore the fact that I DO care if unborn babies die, and I want as many of them to as possible!"


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The misconception is that if you make abortion illegal, it will go away.  The day it becomes illegal, the abortion pill (mifepristone and misoprostol) will become available through your neighborhood drug dealer.  Thousands of women across the country will suffer complications and many will die because it needs to be administered in a medical facility.  Just like it was 50 years ago, the fine upstanding members of the community that would never tolerate abortion in their city will hustle their pregnant teenage daughters off to medical facilities out of state for safe secret abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The misconception is that we believe that making abortion illegal will make it go away.
> 
> The reality is that we know restricting it will greatly decrease the number of abortions, and also the number of unwanted pregnancies in general.
> 
> Only leftists ever dawdle around with silly concepts about laws completely eliminating a behavior.
Click to expand...

It would decrease abortions in the state where it is illegal. There are blue states where it will always be legal. With only 28% of the people in the country agreeing that Rowe v Wade should be overturned, legal abortion is not going away.  Some states may be able to restrict it forcing the poor into back alley abortions but for most women an abortion will be as close as nearest airport or bus station.


----------



## Issa

SweetSue92 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
Click to expand...

I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.


----------



## RealDave

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



So,since fingerprints are not fully developed until the 6 month mark, are you saying abortions are OK under 6 months?

DNA in cancerous tumors do not match that of the person.  Are you saying we can't remove tumors?

When does life begin?


----------



## RealDave

Flash said:


> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.


Now people are killing children.


----------



## RealDave

SweetSue92 said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
Click to expand...

  You mean like your argument  for guns?


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rape and Sexual Assault in the Abortion Industry*
> Our new report, _“America’s Carefully Hidden Sex Scandal”_, proves that one of the darkest and best-kept secrets in America is that women are sometimes raped or sexually assaulted inside the clinics where they go for abortions.* In fact, it’s unlikely that there’s any other business in the country where a woman is as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than in an abortion clinic.*
> 
> BUSTED! The Abortion Industry - Life Dynamics
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A MORON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I don’t want to be a moron I avoid websites that have an agenda and a bias like the antia-abortion website you linked to. The anto-abortion side does nothing but lie because the truth is not on their side and never has been.
> 
> They’re only in favour of forcing women to have babies but aren’t dealing with issues like the rate of infant mortality in America, or maternal death in childbirth. The USA has the highest rates of both in the first world. Real women and babies are dying and conservatives don’t care and are trying to shut down Planned Parenthood which does.
> 
> Campaign life your names lie you don’t care if women die
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you don't want to be a moron, you pretty much just have to sit and cry in despair, because it's unavoidable for you.
> 
> As always, there's no false accusation you can bitterly hurl at us that will make as immoral and evil as people who are trying to excuse killing unborn babies.
> 
> "You don't care if women die . . . even though I can't actually explain what deaths I'm babbling about.  Just ignore the fact that I DO care if unborn babies die, and I want as many of them to as possible!"
Click to expand...

Conservatives seem to care a lot more about unborn babies than those born. 9 out of 10 states that have highest infant mortality are red states and 8 out of 10 of the states with lowest infant mortality are blue states. 

Stats of the States - Infant Mortality


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Are we to infer that children die in red states out of pure neglect? Or malice?
Because we know that in states like Virginia, New York, Vermont children are left to die
or aborted just prior to delivery thanks to official state law.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rape and Sexual Assault in the Abortion Industry*
> Our new report, _“America’s Carefully Hidden Sex Scandal”_, proves that one of the darkest and best-kept secrets in America is that women are sometimes raped or sexually assaulted inside the clinics where they go for abortions.* In fact, it’s unlikely that there’s any other business in the country where a woman is as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than in an abortion clinic.*
> 
> BUSTED! The Abortion Industry - Life Dynamics
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A MORON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I don’t want to be a moron I avoid websites that have an agenda and a bias like the antia-abortion website you linked to. The anto-abortion side does nothing but lie because the truth is not on their side and never has been.
> 
> They’re only in favour of forcing women to have babies but aren’t dealing with issues like the rate of infant mortality in America, or maternal death in childbirth. The USA has the highest rates of both in the first world. Real women and babies are dying and conservatives don’t care and are trying to shut down Planned Parenthood which does.
> 
> Campaign life your names lie you don’t care if women die
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you don't want to be a moron, you pretty much just have to sit and cry in despair, because it's unavoidable for you.
> 
> As always, there's no false accusation you can bitterly hurl at us that will make as immoral and evil as people who are trying to excuse killing unborn babies.
> 
> "You don't care if women die . . . even though I can't actually explain what deaths I'm babbling about.  Just ignore the fact that I DO care if unborn babies die, and I want as many of them to as possible!"
Click to expand...


Trying to put words in my mouth that I have never uttered does not change the lies and the misleading narrative of the right. 

Providing health care and maternity leave for pregnant women would save women from making the choice or abortion. Providing job protections for pregnant women would save women from choosing abortion. 

There are dozens of ways that will reduce abortions, maternal deaths and infant deaths and conservatives don’t want to do any of them. In fact, they are reducing the availability of health care for women and children. They won’t even discuss maternity leave. And women and children are on their own for women’s health issues. 

When you’re prepared to address the roots causes if abortion, I’ll believe this is something other than a way to shame women for having sex and controlling them. Until then, you’re just another lying hypocrite.


----------



## LilOlLady

Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rape and Sexual Assault in the Abortion Industry*
> Our new report, _“America’s Carefully Hidden Sex Scandal”_, proves that one of the darkest and best-kept secrets in America is that women are sometimes raped or sexually assaulted inside the clinics where they go for abortions.* In fact, it’s unlikely that there’s any other business in the country where a woman is as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than in an abortion clinic.*
> 
> BUSTED! The Abortion Industry - Life Dynamics
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A MORON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I don’t want to be a moron I avoid websites that have an agenda and a bias like the antia-abortion website you linked to. The anto-abortion side does nothing but lie because the truth is not on their side and never has been.
> 
> They’re only in favour of forcing women to have babies but aren’t dealing with issues like the rate of infant mortality in America, or maternal death in childbirth. The USA has the highest rates of both in the first world. Real women and babies are dying and conservatives don’t care and are trying to shut down Planned Parenthood which does.
> 
> Campaign life your names lie you don’t care if women die
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you don't want to be a moron, you pretty much just have to sit and cry in despair, because it's unavoidable for you.
> 
> As always, there's no false accusation you can bitterly hurl at us that will make as immoral and evil as people who are trying to excuse killing unborn babies.
> 
> "You don't care if women die . . . even though I can't actually explain what deaths I'm babbling about.  Just ignore the fact that I DO care if unborn babies die, and I want as many of them to as possible!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives seem to care a lot more about unborn babies than those born. 9 out of 10 states that have highest infant mortality are red states and 8 out of 10 of the states with lowest infant mortality are blue states.
> 
> Stats of the States - Infant Mortality
Click to expand...


They "seem" to, huh?  How would you know?  Do you spend a lot of time talking with, as opposed to talking at, conservatives?  Or was that what the media and your talking points told you?

Infant mortality rates have little or nothing to do with "caring about born babies", and you should be ashamed of being so putridly dishonest as to pretend otherwise.  Even assuming that your statistics are correct - and after that little display of disingenuity, the only thing I assume about you is that you're a lying partisan hack - I'd be fascinated to hear what causal link you think there is in "We voted for a Democrat in the last Presidential election, and that kept babies from dying."

Feel free to explain what you're preening yourself about this time.


----------



## Dragonlady

LilOlLady said:


> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.



*BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.

The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.


----------



## Rustic

Dragonlady said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
Click to expand...

Lol
In your opinion…


----------



## Flopper

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Are we to infer that children die in red states out of pure neglect? Or malice?
> Because we know that in states like Virginia, New York, Vermont children are left to die
> or aborted just prior to delivery thanks to official state law.


I guess we feel different.  I consider care for children is more important than a fetus.  Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
Click to expand...



You remain a blood-drenched, atavistic, knuckle-dragging savage.


*Here are the details.*

*"Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg*

Human life begins in bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing ‘fireworks’ on film.

An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.

Scientists had seen the phenomenon occur in other animals but it is the first time is has been also shown to happen in humans.

*“To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”*

_Professor Teresa Woodruff, Northwestern University_

Not only is it an incredible spectacle, highlighting the very moment that a new life begins, the size of the flash can be used to determine the quality of the fertilised egg.

Researchers from Northwestern University, in Chicago, noticed that some of the eggs burn brighter than others, showing that they are more likely to produce a healthy baby.

“It’s a way of sorting egg quality in a way we’ve never been able to assess before.* “All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,* yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”

The bright flash occurs because when *sperm enters and egg *it triggers calcium to increase which releases zinc from the egg. As the zinc shoots out, it binds to small molecules which emit a fluorescence which can be picked up my camera microscopes.

Over the last six years this team has shown that zinc controls the decision to grow and change into a completely new genetic organism.

In the experiment, scientists use sperm enzyme rather than actual sperm to show what happens at the moment of conception.

In a companion paper published in Scientific Reports on March 18, a zinc spark is shown at the precise time a sperm enters a mouse egg.

This discovery was made by Zhang, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern.  Little is known about the events that occur at the time of fertilization, because it is difficult to capture the precise time of sperm entry.

The study will be published April 26 in Scientific Reports."
Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg





That life ends when Democrats/Liberals take charge.


----------



## sparky

Dragonlady said:


> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life. A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member. *The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.*



Then the responsibility should be as well

~S~


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to infer that children die in red states out of pure neglect? Or malice?
> Because we know that in states like Virginia, New York, Vermont children are left to die
> or aborted just prior to delivery thanks to official state law.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we feel different.  I consider care for children is more important than a fetus.  Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.
Click to expand...


I just heard, "I can't address your points, so I'm going to try to pretend that my running away from them is actually just agreeing to disagree . . . and then restate how my position of supporting abortion is somehow morally superior and compassionate."

Here's a thought.  Maybe you could sack up and answer the questions about whatever-the-fuck point you were trying to make without really making it.

_"Conservatives seem to care a lot more about unborn babies than those born. 9 out of 10 states that have highest infant mortality are red states and 8 out of 10 of the states with lowest infant mortality are blue states."_

Explain, in detail, what causality you're implying with this, or admit that you were bullshitting to deflect.  Your choice.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
Click to expand...



*"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "

Another dunce who failed high school biology.



1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”

"After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland



Turns out Democrats are the party of death.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Some interesting facts related to abortion, here:

The Calculus Of Abortion


----------



## BlueGin

Issa said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
Click to expand...

Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.


----------



## BlueGin

Flopper said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to infer that children die in red states out of pure neglect? Or malice?
> Because we know that in states like Virginia, New York, Vermont children are left to die
> or aborted just prior to delivery thanks to official state law.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we feel different.  I consider care for children is more important than a fetus.  Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.
Click to expand...

So go care for some. I donate to help kids in foster care, those of military families and NA’s with FAS.

Don’t assume people do nothing just because that’s what liberals do...


----------



## beagle9

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> *Turns out Democrats are the party of death.*
Click to expand...


And what is behind their reasoning for it all ??? They have a reason or a number of reasons, but what are they ?

Is it population control, race experimentation, social engineering, political reasons what ?


----------



## PoliticalChic

beagle9 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> *Turns out Democrats are the party of death.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is behind their reasoning for it all ??? They have a reason or a number of reasons, but what are they ?
> 
> Is it population control, race experimentation, social engineering, political reasons what ?
Click to expand...




Nope.....it's this:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about *the sanctity of human life."* 
Leon Trotsky


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlueGin said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to infer that children die in red states out of pure neglect? Or malice?
> Because we know that in states like Virginia, New York, Vermont children are left to die
> or aborted just prior to delivery thanks to official state law.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we feel different.  I consider care for children is more important than a fetus.  Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So go care for some. I donate to help kids in foster care, those of military families and NA’s with FAS.
> 
> Don’t assume people do nothing just because that’s what liberals do...
Click to expand...


I donate to a crisis pregnancy center which helps women not only through the pregnancy, but also afterward, whether they need help and guidance with adoption services, or they need baby furniture and diapers and whatnot.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> *Turns out Democrats are the party of death.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is behind their reasoning for it all ??? They have a reason or a number of reasons, but what are they ?
> 
> Is it population control, race experimentation, social engineering, political reasons what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.....it's this:
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about *the sanctity of human life."*
> Leon Trotsky
Click to expand...


If you believe that other humans are intrinsically valuable and important, that means you are sometimes obligated to put your selfish whims aside for their benefit.  Leftists can't handle that idea, since - like all spoiled children - they consider their whims to be all-important.


----------



## buttercup

Dragonlady said:


> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.



That is as ignorant as it gets.  In my mind, you just lost all credibility.


----------



## LilOlLady

PoliticalChic said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> *Turns out Democrats are the party of death.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is behind their reasoning for it all ??? They have a reason or a number of reasons, but what are they ?
> 
> Is it population control, race experimentation, social engineering, political reasons what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.....it's this:
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about *the sanctity of human life."*
> Leon Trotsky
Click to expand...

That is babble. Leon Trotsky, was a Russian revolutionary, Marxist theorist, and Soviet politician whose particular strain of Marxist thought is known as Trotskyism.


----------



## Flopper

sparky said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life. A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member. *The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the responsibility should be as well
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

And the responsibility does rest with the woman as it should.  From personal experience within my family, abortion is a very a difficult decision.   The emotional scares of an abortion last for years.  Bearing an unwanted child or a child of rape or incest, or a child with serious birth defeats is simply a burden that many can not carry.  Government should not be making that decision.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life. A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member. *The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the responsibility should be as well
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the responsibility does rest with the woman as it should.  From personal experience within my family, abortion is a very a difficult decision.   The emotional scares of an abortion last for years.  Bearing an unwanted child or a child of rape or incest, or a child with serious birth defeats is simply a burden that many can not carry.  Government should not be making that decision.
Click to expand...


Once again, we have a man condescendingly mansplaining to us how abortion is what's best for women, because those poor fragile little flowers can't possibly deal with the horrors of having children.

Thank you so much for your "feminist" sentiment that I'm a weak little victim who just doesn't understand what's best for me.


----------



## joaquinmiller

Why not just send thoughts and prayers for the aborted fetuses, then get back to complaining about big cities or voter fraud?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlueGin said:


> So go care for some. I donate to help kids in foster care, those of military families and NA’s with FAS.
> 
> Don’t assume people do nothing just because that’s what liberals do...


My question was a rhetorical one
and I'm NOT a liberal and made NO assumptions about people doing nothing. 
My question inferred just the opposite actually.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Flopper said:


> I guess we feel different. I consider care for children is more important than a fetus. Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.


I agree we hold opposite views that probably won't change. But when you point out infant mortality rates in red states
I don't feel like you are taking into account the mortality rate of children in late term abortions in New York, Vermont, etc.

No need to argue. I just want that viewpoint considered too.


----------



## Votto

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



The worst arguments against pro-lifers?

Well let's see.

1.  It's a choice (No, it's either a parasite or a human being, so which is it?  Don't take a position until you answer that question.  You have a moral obligation to do so.)

2.  Rape and incest.  (The vast majority of abortions are performed due to financial concerns)

3.  Back alley abortions (Gosnell proved that back alley abortions still continue because Progressives refuse to restrict abortion doctors in any way)

4.  Abortion will reduce welfare costs (Meanwhile, these same people are bending over backward trying to let poor illegal immigrants into the country for welfare?)


----------



## LilOlLady

Birth control work but they have to be used. *Birth control pills* are very *effective*. They're most *effective* when* taken correctly*. Less than *1 out of 100 women *will get pregnant each year if they always take the *pill each* day as directed. So why are there so many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions? Because the majority of women are stupid, reckless and irresponsible knowing if they are pregnant there is *"abortions on demand"* If abortions were illegal there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The *first* rubber condom was produced in *1855*, and by the late 1850s several major rubber companies were mass-producing, among other items, rubber *condoms*. Condoms also cut down on STDs, etc.


----------



## Votto

LilOlLady said:


> Birth control work but they have to be used. *Birth control pills* are very *effective*. They're most *effective* when* taken correctly*. Less than *1 out of 100 women *will get pregnant each year if they always take the *pill each* day as directed. So why are there so many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions? Because the majority of women are stupid, reckless and irresponsible knowing if they are pregnant there is *"abortions on demand"* If abortions were illegal there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The *first* rubber condom was produced in *1855*, and by the late 1850s several major rubber companies were mass-producing, among other items, rubber *condoms*. Condoms also cut down on STDs, etc.



Being "stupid" is not an excuse for murder.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to infer that children die in red states out of pure neglect? Or malice?
> Because we know that in states like Virginia, New York, Vermont children are left to die
> or aborted just prior to delivery thanks to official state law.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we feel different.  I consider care for children is more important than a fetus.  Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heard, "I can't address your points, so I'm going to try to pretend that my running away from them is actually just agreeing to disagree . . . and then restate how my position of supporting abortion is somehow morally superior and compassionate."
> 
> Here's a thought.  Maybe you could sack up and answer the questions about whatever-the-fuck point you were trying to make without really making it.
> 
> _"Conservatives seem to care a lot more about unborn babies than those born. 9 out of 10 states that have highest infant mortality are red states and 8 out of 10 of the states with lowest infant mortality are blue states."_
> 
> Explain, in detail, what causality you're implying with this, or admit that you were bullshitting to deflect.  Your choice.
Click to expand...


You could try being less condescending and snotty with people who are providing far more thoughtful responses to defend their positions that you're capable of writing.

These states are willing to spend money to pursue, charge, and incarcerate women who have abortions but are unwilling to spend money on children's health, nutrition, pre or post-natal care or follow-up.  

Programs banning abortion are expensive to implement.  You have to investigate women who were pregnant and now aren't.  You have to chase down abortion providers.  Investigations and trials are expensive, as are incarcerating the guilty.  These laws are being passed in states which spend no money on maternal care, infant care, and as a result, both have high rates of mortality.  These states would rather spend money pursuing women who don't want to have children, than using that money and those resources saving the lives of women who choose to have their babies, and ensuring those babies have adequate post-natal care.

Similarly, these are the states with the worst education records in the USA.  They're not providing proper services for the pregnant women and their babies that they do have, much less having excess resources chasing down and prosecuting women who have abortions.


----------



## Flopper

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we feel different. I consider care for children is more important than a fetus. Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree we hold opposite views that probably won't change. But when you point out infant mortality rates in red states
> I don't feel like you are taking into account the mortality rate of children in late term abortions in New York, Vermont, etc.
> 
> No need to argue. I just want that viewpoint considered too.
Click to expand...

Again we have very different opinions.  I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy.  Later she gave birth to our first son.  There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child.   If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragonlady said:


> ...
> These states are willing to spend money to pursue, charge, and incarcerate women who have abortions but are unwilling to spend money on children's health, nutrition, pre or post-natal care or follow-up. ....




That's a lie, and an illogical deflection in any case.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Flopper said:


> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.


What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?

If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.


----------



## Unkotare

Flopper said:


> .....  I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child......




You try to tell yourself that so you can sleep at night.


----------



## Votto

Flopper said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we feel different. I consider care for children is more important than a fetus. Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree we hold opposite views that probably won't change. But when you point out infant mortality rates in red states
> I don't feel like you are taking into account the mortality rate of children in late term abortions in New York, Vermont, etc.
> 
> No need to argue. I just want that viewpoint considered too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again we have very different opinions.  I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy.  Later she gave birth to our first son.  There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child.   If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
Click to expand...


It is not a child to YOU.

You did not see it, did not hear it, out of sight, out of mind, but that does not address the issue of it's humanity.

And you see this in the media.  Some big wig dies, like Princess Diana, and all hell breaks loose.  The media is consumed 24/7 with the story as money and gifts pour in as people grieve

But take some homeless person who dies and not a peep.  They are lucky to make any news whatsoever.


----------



## Flopper

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
Click to expand...

There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.


----------



## BlueGin

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So go care for some. I donate to help kids in foster care, those of military families and NA’s with FAS.
> 
> Don’t assume people do nothing just because that’s what liberals do...
> 
> 
> 
> My question was a rhetorical one
> and I'm NOT a liberal and made NO assumptions about people doing nothing.
> My question inferred just the opposite actually.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I was responding to the person who quoted you.


----------



## LilOlLady

Votto said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control work but they have to be used. *Birth control pills* are very *effective*. They're most *effective* when* taken correctly*. Less than *1 out of 100 women *will get pregnant each year if they always take the *pill each* day as directed. So why are there so many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions? Because the majority of women are stupid, reckless and irresponsible knowing if they are pregnant there is *"abortions on demand"* If abortions were illegal there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The *first* rubber condom was produced in *1855*, and by the late 1850s several major rubber companies were mass-producing, among other items, rubber *condoms*. Condoms also cut down on STDs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being "stupid" is not an excuse for murder.
Click to expand...

Neither is *poverty or homelessness*. And people do not kill their kids when they become homeless. One organization estimated that in 2015, 13.5% of Americans (*43.1 million)* lived in *poverty*. Yet other scholars underscore the number of people in the United States *living* in "near-*poverty*," putting the number at around *100 million,* or nearly a third of the U.S. population. A staggering *2.5 million children *are now homeless each year in America. And about *33.3 percent* were people in families (*184,661 adults and children*)


----------



## LilOlLady

Flopper said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.
Click to expand...

An egg in a woman is not alive but once it is fertilized it is a life. Have you ever scrambled eaten a fertilized chicken egg? Well on its way to becoming a chicken.


----------



## buttercup

LilOlLady said:


> Birth control work but they have to be used. *Birth control pills* are very *effective*. They're most *effective* when* taken correctly*. Less than *1 out of 100 women *will get pregnant each year if they always take the *pill each* day as directed. So why are there so many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions? Because the majority of women are stupid, reckless and irresponsible knowing if they are pregnant there is *"abortions on demand"* If abortions were illegal there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The *first* rubber condom was produced in *1855*, and by the late 1850s several major rubber companies were mass-producing, among other items, rubber *condoms*. Condoms also cut down on STDs, etc.


This may be controversial but I don’t think people should look to birth control as the solution. I’m not against birth-control, but 1)  many young people are irresponsible and don’t use it properly and 2) It’s not foolproof  and often becomes a false sense of security.  It’s like playing Russian roulette. 

I think everyone has to have a complete mindset shift on these topics (sex, pregnancy, abortion )  The problem is that in today’s society, young people are brainwashed to believe that sex can be completely severed from its life-giving potential, which goes against reality.   They are encouraged to have sex, they’re told it’s no big deal, that it doesn’t have life-changing consequences, which goes against the reality.   The way they are taught (brainwashed) about sex is a recipe for disaster.  And I think that’s by design, BTW, but I digress.

So I think the entire approach needs to change, people need to never forget that sex is the act that creates babies.   And it has other potential consequences. *Cause and effect.*  People need to stop ignoring  reality. And if they know that, then willingly having sex KNOWING the consequences, is tacitly consenting to the consequences, including pregnancy.   

Also, speaking of birth control, please watch this video. If even half of what she saying is true, then this is criminal and pure evil.  And explains a lot!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Flopper said:


> There is no child before birth. It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth.


You say you don't want to argue then you keep making these sophist's arguments.
A child is fully developed and capable of life outside the womb long before actual delivery. It would be better brought to full term but many children are born prematurely and wind up perfectly fine. 
If you don't want to argue stop with the non-scientific nonsense.


----------



## buttercup

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no child before birth. It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth.
> 
> 
> 
> You say you don't want to argue then you keep making these sophist's arguments.
> A child is fully developed and capable of life outside the womb long before actual delivery. It would be better brought to full term but many children are born prematurely and wind up perfectly fine.
> If you don't want to argue stop with the non-scientific nonsense.
Click to expand...


Right? To say there’s no child before birth is the most idiotic thing I’ve heard, in a long time.


----------



## LilOlLady

An abortion may only be carried out up to the *24th week *of the pregnancy.  A baby at 24 weeks is viable. A baby aborted at *24 weeks is a fetus *but if it is a premature birth at 24 weeks is a  baby? That makes as much sense as a dog giving birth to a pig. 

I had a baby at 23 weeks - here's what I want other parents to know


----------



## Flopper

buttercup said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control work but they have to be used. *Birth control pills* are very *effective*. They're most *effective* when* taken correctly*. Less than *1 out of 100 women *will get pregnant each year if they always take the *pill each* day as directed. So why are there so many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions? Because the majority of women are stupid, reckless and irresponsible knowing if they are pregnant there is *"abortions on demand"* If abortions were illegal there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The *first* rubber condom was produced in *1855*, and by the late 1850s several major rubber companies were mass-producing, among other items, rubber *condoms*. Condoms also cut down on STDs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be controversial but I don’t think people should look to birth control as the solution. I’m not against birth-control, but 1)  many young people are irresponsible and don’t use it properly and 2) It’s not foolproof  and often becomes a false sense of security.  It’s like playing Russian roulette.
> 
> I think everyone has to have a complete mindset shift on these topics (sex, pregnancy, abortion )  The problem is that in today’s society, young people are brainwashed to believe that sex can be completely severed from its life-giving potential, which goes against reality.   They are encouraged to have sex, they’re told it’s no big deal, that it doesn’t have life-changing consequences, which goes against the reality.   The way they are taught (brainwashed) about sex is a recipe for disaster.  And I think that’s by design, BTW, but I digress.
> 
> So I think the entire approach needs to change, people need to never forget that sex is the act that creates babies.   And it has other potential consequences. *Cause and effect.*  People need to stop ignoring  reality. And if they know that, then willingly having sex KNOWING the consequences, is tacitly consenting to the consequences, including pregnancy.
> 
> Also, speaking of birth control, please watch this video. If even half of what she saying is true, then this is criminal and pure evil.  And explains a lot!
Click to expand...

And that would be nice along with people respecting others.  Parents becoming good role models and everyone treating others as they would like to be treated.  Now, back to the real world...


----------



## buttercup

Flopper said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control work but they have to be used. *Birth control pills* are very *effective*. They're most *effective* when* taken correctly*. Less than *1 out of 100 women *will get pregnant each year if they always take the *pill each* day as directed. So why are there so many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions? Because the majority of women are stupid, reckless and irresponsible knowing if they are pregnant there is *"abortions on demand"* If abortions were illegal there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The *first* rubber condom was produced in *1855*, and by the late 1850s several major rubber companies were mass-producing, among other items, rubber *condoms*. Condoms also cut down on STDs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be controversial but I don’t think people should look to birth control as the solution. I’m not against birth-control, but 1)  many young people are irresponsible and don’t use it properly and 2) It’s not foolproof  and often becomes a false sense of security.  It’s like playing Russian roulette.
> 
> I think everyone has to have a complete mindset shift on these topics (sex, pregnancy, abortion )  The problem is that in today’s society, young people are brainwashed to believe that sex can be completely severed from its life-giving potential, which goes against reality.   They are encouraged to have sex, they’re told it’s no big deal, that it doesn’t have life-changing consequences, which goes against the reality.   The way they are taught (brainwashed) about sex is a recipe for disaster.  And I think that’s by design, BTW, but I digress.
> 
> So I think the entire approach needs to change, people need to never forget that sex is the act that creates babies.   And it has other potential consequences. *Cause and effect.*  People need to stop ignoring  reality. And if they know that, then willingly having sex KNOWING the consequences, is tacitly consenting to the consequences, including pregnancy.
> 
> Also, speaking of birth control, please watch this video. If even half of what she saying is true, then this is criminal and pure evil.  And explains a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that would be nice along with people respecting others.  Parents becoming good role models and everyone treating others as they would like to be treated.  Now, back to the real world...
Click to expand...


Well one thing’s for sure, the way things have been does not work. They throw condoms at kids and say have fun! Then when something goes wrong just kill your baby! It doesn’t work. Look at all the young people who have STDs, look at all the unwanted pregnancies or babies out of wedlock. It just doesn’t work.  A different approach is needed and I don’t see why you would be against that.


----------



## Flopper

buttercup said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no child before birth. It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth.
> 
> 
> 
> You say you don't want to argue then you keep making these sophist's arguments.
> A child is fully developed and capable of life outside the womb long before actual delivery. It would be better brought to full term but many children are born prematurely and wind up perfectly fine.
> If you don't want to argue stop with the non-scientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right? To say there’s no child before birth is the most idiotic thing I’ve heard, in a long time.
Click to expand...

Childbirth is demarcation line between development of the fetus and the child. The fetus is a potential person and as such has certain protections under the law.  It certainly does not have full rights of a person.


----------



## LilOlLady

James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) was the earliest *premature baby* in the world, until that record was broken in 2014. He was 128 days *premature* (21 weeks and 5 days' gestation) and weighed 1 pound 6 ounces (624 g). He survived. 
Premature Baby Born at 21 Weeks is One of the Youngest Ever to Survive, Look at Her Now | LifeNews.com


----------



## sparky

Flopper said:


> Government should not be making that decision.





Cecilie1200 said:


> Thank you so much for your "feminist" sentiment that I'm a weak little victim who just doesn't understand what's best for me.



I say let women decide , but just like the '_my body_' mindset, it's '_your child_' as well

Elevate the personal responsibility you seek to _you and you alone_ , no _man_ , no _gub'mit_, no _welfare check_, just _you_

who'll _woman up_ to this?

~S~


----------



## beagle9

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to infer that children die in red states out of pure neglect? Or malice?
> Because we know that in states like Virginia, New York, Vermont children are left to die
> or aborted just prior to delivery thanks to official state law.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we feel different.  I consider care for children is more important than a fetus.  Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heard, "I can't address your points, so I'm going to try to pretend that my running away from them is actually just agreeing to disagree . . . and then restate how my position of supporting abortion is somehow morally superior and compassionate."
> 
> Here's a thought.  Maybe you could sack up and answer the questions about whatever-the-fuck point you were trying to make without really making it.
> 
> _"Conservatives seem to care a lot more about unborn babies than those born. 9 out of 10 states that have highest infant mortality are red states and 8 out of 10 of the states with lowest infant mortality are blue states."_
> 
> Explain, in detail, what causality you're implying with this, or admit that you were bullshitting to deflect.  Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could try being less condescending and snotty with people who are providing far more thoughtful responses to defend their positions that you're capable of writing.
> 
> These states are willing to spend money to pursue, charge, and incarcerate women who have abortions but are unwilling to spend money on children's health, nutrition, pre or post-natal care or follow-up.
> 
> Programs banning abortion are expensive to implement.  You have to investigate women who were pregnant and now aren't.  You have to chase down abortion providers.  Investigations and trials are expensive, as are incarcerating the guilty.  These laws are being passed in states which spend no money on maternal care, infant care, and as a result, both have high rates of mortality.  These states would rather spend money pursuing women who don't want to have children, than using that money and those resources saving the lives of women who choose to have their babies, and ensuring those babies have adequate post-natal care.
> 
> Similarly, these are the states with the worst education records in the USA.  They're not providing proper services for the pregnant women and their babies that they do have, much less having excess resources chasing down and prosecuting women who have abortions.
Click to expand...

So to punish these states that you crap talk about, it is that these women are out to prove them to be bad states by getting pregnant within them, and then having an abortion just to show them eh ??

Don't you see how dumb your position is ??


----------



## beagle9

Flopper said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control work but they have to be used. *Birth control pills* are very *effective*. They're most *effective* when* taken correctly*. Less than *1 out of 100 women *will get pregnant each year if they always take the *pill each* day as directed. So why are there so many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions? Because the majority of women are stupid, reckless and irresponsible knowing if they are pregnant there is *"abortions on demand"* If abortions were illegal there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The *first* rubber condom was produced in *1855*, and by the late 1850s several major rubber companies were mass-producing, among other items, rubber *condoms*. Condoms also cut down on STDs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be controversial but I don’t think people should look to birth control as the solution. I’m not against birth-control, but 1)  many young people are irresponsible and don’t use it properly and 2) It’s not foolproof  and often becomes a false sense of security.  It’s like playing Russian roulette.
> 
> I think everyone has to have a complete mindset shift on these topics (sex, pregnancy, abortion )  The problem is that in today’s society, young people are brainwashed to believe that sex can be completely severed from its life-giving potential, which goes against reality.   They are encouraged to have sex, they’re told it’s no big deal, that it doesn’t have life-changing consequences, which goes against the reality.   The way they are taught (brainwashed) about sex is a recipe for disaster.  And I think that’s by design, BTW, but I digress.
> 
> So I think the entire approach needs to change, people need to never forget that sex is the act that creates babies.   And it has other potential consequences. *Cause and effect.*  People need to stop ignoring  reality. And if they know that, then willingly having sex KNOWING the consequences, is tacitly consenting to the consequences, including pregnancy.
> 
> Also, speaking of birth control, please watch this video. If even half of what she saying is true, then this is criminal and pure evil.  And explains a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that would be nice along with people respecting others.  Parents becoming good role models and everyone treating others as they would like to be treated.  Now, back to the real world...
Click to expand...

Had all that once upon a time in this real world to a large degree, but the left destroyed it. Now real Americans of all colors are fighting back, and thank God for it.


----------



## LilOlLady

A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.

The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."


----------



## Coyote

buttercup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control work but they have to be used. *Birth control pills* are very *effective*. They're most *effective* when* taken correctly*. Less than *1 out of 100 women *will get pregnant each year if they always take the *pill each* day as directed. So why are there so many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions? Because the majority of women are stupid, reckless and irresponsible knowing if they are pregnant there is *"abortions on demand"* If abortions were illegal there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The *first* rubber condom was produced in *1855*, and by the late 1850s several major rubber companies were mass-producing, among other items, rubber *condoms*. Condoms also cut down on STDs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be controversial but I don’t think people should look to birth control as the solution. I’m not against birth-control, but 1)  many young people are irresponsible and don’t use it properly and 2) It’s not foolproof  and often becomes a false sense of security.  It’s like playing Russian roulette.
> 
> I think everyone has to have a complete mindset shift on these topics (sex, pregnancy, abortion )  The problem is that in today’s society, young people are brainwashed to believe that sex can be completely severed from its life-giving potential, which goes against reality.   They are encouraged to have sex, they’re told it’s no big deal, that it doesn’t have life-changing consequences, which goes against the reality.   The way they are taught (brainwashed) about sex is a recipe for disaster.  And I think that’s by design, BTW, but I digress.
> 
> So I think the entire approach needs to change, people need to never forget that sex is the act that creates babies.   And it has other potential consequences. *Cause and effect.*  People need to stop ignoring  reality. And if they know that, then willingly having sex KNOWING the consequences, is tacitly consenting to the consequences, including pregnancy.
> 
> Also, speaking of birth control, please watch this video. If even half of what she saying is true, then this is criminal and pure evil.  And explains a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that would be nice along with people respecting others.  Parents becoming good role models and everyone treating others as they would like to be treated.  Now, back to the real world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one thing’s for sure, the way things have been does not work. They throw condoms at kids and say have fun! Then when something goes wrong just kill your baby! It doesn’t work. Look at all the young people who have STDs, look at all the unwanted pregnancies or babies out of wedlock. It just doesn’t work.  A different approach is needed and I don’t see why you would be against that.
Click to expand...


They don’t just throw condoms at them and say have fun, they educate them to act responsibly and part of that means understanding that they may have sex anyway so at least be protected.

The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?

U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common


----------



## Weatherman2020

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

From the group that dictates what size soda you can buy. 

And Carlin never said that, dumbass.


----------



## beagle9

LilOlLady said:


> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."


Life and human beings are truly miracles to marvel at. Anyone not in awe of all of it are simply lost souls in this world.


----------



## I c h i g o

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



Gotta love when these Pro-Choice folks speak out , "Women should terminate pregnancies resulting from rape because it's what God intended."

Since when did God even intend any woman to terminate their pregnancies at all?


----------



## satrebil

Coyote said:


> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common



Neat. 

Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?



 



 



 


Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report


----------



## I c h i g o

Nothing like hearing Pro-choicers invoke historical geno-cides like slavery and the Holocaust to rally their cause as if harassing women at clinics is the same thing as running the Underground Railroad.


----------



## denmark

buttercup said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kittymom1026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the US and we have a* Constitution that governs this country*, and no matter how many times you say it, abortion is NOT a crime here.  You want to live in a country that is governed by religion, move to Brazil. It's a Catholic country that outlaws abortion. You'd fit right in there.
> 
> 
> 
> Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
> You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
> Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
Click to expand...

I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.

Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.

I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their own lives.
Not your business.


----------



## night_son

denmark said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
> You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
> Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.
> 
> Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.
> 
> I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their lives.
Click to expand...


No. You're a sadist. Literally. Your mind, on this issue, runs on the derived teachings of one Donatien Alphonse François, better known to history as Le Marquis de Sade. You just didn't know it.


----------



## LilOlLady

I c h i g o said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love when these Pro-Choice folks speak out , "Women should terminate pregnancies resulting from rape because it's what God intended."
> 
> Since when did God even intend any woman to terminate their pregnancies at all?
Click to expand...

Not only does *God know every individual before they exist, *but He even has a purpose with each of these lives. This is expressed clearly in the book of Psalms:

“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb.  I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. *Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed*. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.” Psalm 139:13-16.

“Logical” or, some would argue, “selfish” reasons are some of the main motives – the timing is wrong, parents calculate that they cannot afford raising another child, the pregnancy is socially unacceptable etc. However, *life is not ours to take*, and God’s Word clearly says, *“You shall not murder.”* Exodus 20:13. “Terminating” a developing life for these reasons is just as much a sin against God and the unborn life.


----------



## denmark

night_son said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.
> 
> Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.
> 
> I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You're a sadist. Literally. Your mind, on this issue, runs on the derived teachings of one Donatien Alphonse François, better known to history as Le Marquis de Sade. You just didn't know it.
Click to expand...

I think YOU are a sadist. LOL.
Saying someone is something does not make it so. Fantasy is not reality, but you may not know that .
Do you know how to justify your belief?


----------



## buttercup

Flopper said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.
Click to expand...


lol.  I get that you guys have to use words like "embyro" or "fetus", because you gotta dehumanize who you advocate killing!    But everyone else knows the reality.


----------



## denmark

buttercup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  I get that you guys have to use words like "embyro" or "fetus", because you gotta dehumanize who you advocate killing!    But everyone else knows the reality.
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone else knows the reality they want to believe in.
Here is another set of definitions of “child”:

a person between birth and full growth.
a son or daughter:
a baby or infant.
a human fetus.
a childish person:
the definition of child


----------



## SweetSue92

denmark said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
> You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
> Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.
> 
> Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.
> 
> I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their own lives.
> Not your business.
Click to expand...


Sorry, this profoundly stupid Abortion Talking Point has already been covered: "God kills babies so why can't we???"

1. You do not have the power to create babies, not really. You can have sex, congrats. You cannot literally create the building blocks of life, you are not Creator and

2. You do not determine their eternal destiny. In short, 

3. You are not God


----------



## denmark

SweetSue92 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.
> 
> Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.
> 
> I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their own lives.
> Not your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this profoundly stupid Abortion Talking Point has already been covered: "God kills babies so why can't we???"
> 
> 1. You do not have the power to create babies, not really. You can have sex, congrats. You cannot literally create the building blocks of life, you are not Creator and
> 
> 2. You do not determine their eternal destiny. In short,
> 
> 3. You are not God
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that I am not God.
However, i did participate in the creation of babies that became children, then adults.
So what?

I never said we SHOULD kill babies, or fetuses. However, we should also not play God and tell others how to believe and conduct their private lives related to pregnancy.


----------



## LilOlLady

denmark said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.
> 
> Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.
> 
> I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You're a sadist. Literally. Your mind, on this issue, runs on the derived teachings of one Donatien Alphonse François, better known to history as Le Marquis de Sade. You just didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think YOU are a sadist. LOL.
> Saying someone is something does not make it so. Fantasy is not reality, but you may not know that .
> Do you know how to justify your belief?
Click to expand...

“A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s accepted by a majority.” Booker T. Washington


----------



## LilOlLady

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.
> 
> Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.
> 
> I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their own lives.
> Not your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this profoundly stupid Abortion Talking Point has already been covered: "God kills babies so why can't we???"
> 
> 1. You do not have the power to create babies, not really. You can have sex, congrats. You cannot literally create the building blocks of life, you are not Creator and
> 
> 2. You do not determine their eternal destiny. In short,
> 
> 3. You are not God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree that I am not God.
> However, i did participate in the creation of babies that became children, then adults.
> So what?
> 
> I never said we SHOULD kill babies, or fetuses. However, we should also not play God and tell others how to believe and conduct their private lives related to pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Then do not let *men in politics make laws* that tell you it is ok to kill your unborn child.


----------



## LilOlLady




----------



## LilOlLady

*The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights*
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has been translated into more than 350 languages worldwide, and more than 100 African languages.


----------



## LilOlLady

The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
*A life is created at conception.*


----------



## busybee01

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



The question is what makes it a life? Is a heartbeat enough? Or is it when it can live outside of the womb? Science has not told us that because it comes down to when does a life become a life. By your definition, letting someone who is on life support die would beki8lling them. Abortion should be kept legal but rare. The power of the state should not be used to enforce your beliefs. Persuasion should be used instead. The idea that a woman should have no say is absurd.


----------



## busybee01

buttercup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  I get that you guys have to use words like "embyro" or "fetus", because you gotta dehumanize who you advocate killing!    But everyone else knows the reality.
Click to expand...


The question is whether it is a life. A unborn child may not necessarily be a life.


----------



## RealDave

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
Click to expand...


Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.

SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.

What happened to the "breath of life"?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Flopper said:


> Childbirth is demarcation line between development of the fetus and the child. The fetus is a potential person and as such has certain protections under the law. It certainly does not have full rights of a person.


That's your arbitrary distinction. As already  pointed out children are prematurely born all the time as perfectly viable human beings. 

Depending on what you mean by "full rights" you can certainly be demonstrated to be very wrong. 
"Approximately 38 States have laws criminally prosecuting persons, except pregnant mothers (and assisting abortion practitioners), who commit acts of violence on unborn babies.  In many and probably in a majority of states, a crime occurs regardless of the age of the fetus, i.e., through every stage of gestation. 

For example, in California, Penal Code §187(a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.

A “fetus” was defined by the California Supreme Court to mean “post-embryonic” (i.e., starting at seven to eight weeks gestation). People v. Davis (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 797.
Federal law has the Unborn Victims of Violence Act . Under this Act, it is a crime to harm an embryo or fetus at any stage of pregnancy during an attack on a pregnant woman. 

Thus, under state and federal fetal victim criminal laws, an unborn baby is a protected person."


----------



## RealDave

BlueGin said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
Click to expand...

  Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.


----------



## Death Angel

RealDave said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
Click to expand...

Yout president, Donald Trump, has done more to help the "needy" than the left EVER will.


----------



## PoliticalChic

RealDave said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
Click to expand...




What else do you know about God?


How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?


----------



## Death Angel

RealDave said:


> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?


You have no idea about the soul. God says, HE knits together the baby in the womb.

The issue isn't the "soul",  the issue is YOU taking a life you cannot create


----------



## Dragonlady

PoliticalChic said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
Click to expand...


Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".

Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
Click to expand...




Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.


----------



## Death Angel

Dragonlady said:


> God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.


You have free will to murder, steal and kidnap and keep slaves too.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Death Angel said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> 
> 
> You have free will to murder, steal and kidnap and keep slaves too.
Click to expand...


God will judge us on our use of free will.


----------



## night_son

Death Angel said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> 
> 
> You have free will to murder, steal and kidnap and keep slaves too.
Click to expand...


Pro-death(ers) suffer from a disorder known as belief in selective-freewill. For example, all women (according to them) must have the free will to murder their developing or born child. However, other women . . . those who hold different beliefs . . . must* not* have the free will to "misgender" the mentally ill or utter without social punishment slang words describing segments of the American population. Further, still other mothers must not have the free will to prevent the state from mutilating their young children into abominations they call "changed sexes". Funny how that whole free will argument thing only works in their favor, selectively of course.


----------



## BlueGin

RealDave said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
Click to expand...

Stealing other people’s money to give the needy free stuff ...only makes the upper, middle and lower class needy. 

Democrats need to step up and actually help not demand others do all the heavy lifting.

Liberals think if they demand you take care of the babies they are killing...that’s the same thing as giving to charity. Again...it’s not.

Idiots.


----------



## night_son

BlueGin said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stealing other people’s money to give the needy free stuff ...only makes the upper, middle and lower class needy.
> 
> Democrats need to step up and actually help not demand others do all the heavy lifting.
> 
> Liberals think if they demand you take care of the babies they are killing...that’s the same thing as giving to charity. Again...it’s not.
> 
> Idiots.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I agree. Taking care of one's child and/or all children in society is a fundamental matter of personal responsibility. The American Left cannot fit the ethos of personal responsibility into it's ideological narrative. Literally, physically and metaphysically, taking responsibility for one's own actions cannot fit into the postmodern bag of ideas. The concept is just too heavy for it.

Because if people at large begin to take responsibility for their actions it is much more difficult to call them victims . . .


----------



## PoliticalChic

BlueGin said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stealing other people’s money to give the needy free stuff ...only makes the upper, middle and lower class needy.
> 
> Democrats need to step up and actually help not demand others do all the heavy lifting.
> 
> Liberals think if they demand you take care of the babies they are killing...that’s the same thing as giving to charity. Again...it’s not.
> 
> Idiots.
Click to expand...




Speaking of 'stepping up'....



*"Another Narrative Busted: Record Number of Foster Care Children Adopted in Permanent Families in Alabama*


Posted by Kemberlee Kaye    Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 7:00am
Little, if anything the media and the outrage brigade are saying about Alabama’s bill or Alabama or the pro-life movement is true.

Alabama, who recently passed stringent abortion restrictions, fully intending to provoke a court battle, recently set a record for the number of foster care children adopted out of the system and into permanent homes.

From AL.com:

There were 710 *foster children adopted *during the year that ended Sept. 30, up from 509 in fiscal year 2017 and 502 in 2016. The previous record was 676 foster children adopted in fiscal year 2009, according to the Alabama Department of Human Resources, which oversees the foster care system.

“*It sends a strong, wonderful message to all the foster care children in our state,”* Ivey said at a news conference at the Capitol, where she posed for photos with children and their families.

There are about 6,375 children in foster care in Alabama. DHR Commissioner Nancy Buckner said about 70 percent of foster children return to their biological families.

“But those that don’t, they need their own loving caring, permanent family and that’s what it’s all about,” Buckner said.

Buckner said there were probably about 250 children in the system in need of adoption for whom DHR has not found an adoptive resource. Those are children whose parents have lost their parental rights. The number of children in that situation has been fairly stable — 234 at the end of fiscal 2016 and 236 at the end of 2015.

Buckner said the increase in adoptions in 2018 is the result of a joint effort that involves juvenile courts, probate judges, DHR and other partners.

“We recognize that children need permanency,” Buckner said. “We all need family. We need family connection. And we’ve all gotten together. We’re doing some partnership things together. So, we’re all on the same page and we’re trying to push permanency through.”
Another Narrative Busted: Record Number of Foster Care Children Adopted in Permanent Families in Alabama


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to infer that children die in red states out of pure neglect? Or malice?
> Because we know that in states like Virginia, New York, Vermont children are left to die
> or aborted just prior to delivery thanks to official state law.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we feel different.  I consider care for children is more important than a fetus.  Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heard, "I can't address your points, so I'm going to try to pretend that my running away from them is actually just agreeing to disagree . . . and then restate how my position of supporting abortion is somehow morally superior and compassionate."
> 
> Here's a thought.  Maybe you could sack up and answer the questions about whatever-the-fuck point you were trying to make without really making it.
> 
> _"Conservatives seem to care a lot more about unborn babies than those born. 9 out of 10 states that have highest infant mortality are red states and 8 out of 10 of the states with lowest infant mortality are blue states."_
> 
> Explain, in detail, what causality you're implying with this, or admit that you were bullshitting to deflect.  Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could try being less condescending and snotty with people who are providing far more thoughtful responses to defend their positions that you're capable of writing.
> 
> These states are willing to spend money to pursue, charge, and incarcerate women who have abortions but are unwilling to spend money on children's health, nutrition, pre or post-natal care or follow-up.
> 
> Programs banning abortion are expensive to implement.  You have to investigate women who were pregnant and now aren't.  You have to chase down abortion providers.  Investigations and trials are expensive, as are incarcerating the guilty.  These laws are being passed in states which spend no money on maternal care, infant care, and as a result, both have high rates of mortality.  These states would rather spend money pursuing women who don't want to have children, than using that money and those resources saving the lives of women who choose to have their babies, and ensuring those babies have adequate post-natal care.
> 
> Similarly, these are the states with the worst education records in the USA.  They're not providing proper services for the pregnant women and their babies that they do have, much less having excess resources chasing down and prosecuting women who have abortions.
Click to expand...


Can't imagine what "thoughtful responses" have to do with you.  I am as respectful to people as they deserve, so instead of whining and demanding that you be taken seriously, perhaps you should consider doing something to earn the respect you want.

Take, for example, your assertion that "these states" want to pursue, charge, and incarcerate women who have abortions, or for that matter, that they're "unwilling to spend money" on your beloved social programs, which you appear certain will make society perfect if we just hand people enough money.  I note that you offer no proof of any of this; you merely state it as established fact and expect people to accept it because you say so.  How is parroting assumptions you've been told to believe with no evidence "thoughtful response defending your position"?

I invite you to cite me the points in law where they indicate that women can be or will be prosecuted for getting abortions.

Furthermore, I invite you to provide proof - perhaps from the state budget - of a state which "spends no money" on maternal care, infant care, blah blah blah de blah.  Show me which state in the US does not have Medicaid, WIC, and a variety of other programs for pregnant women and infants.  Demonstrate for me that this fictional nightmare world of women and children dying in the streets while the state government ignores them.

In short, EARN the right to be viewed as a "thoughtful" person instead of a melodramatic lunatic who believes everything she reads on leftist blogs.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we feel different. I consider care for children is more important than a fetus. Obviously, neither of our opinions is going change so there is no point continuing this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree we hold opposite views that probably won't change. But when you point out infant mortality rates in red states
> I don't feel like you are taking into account the mortality rate of children in late term abortions in New York, Vermont, etc.
> 
> No need to argue. I just want that viewpoint considered too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again we have very different opinions.  I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy.  Later she gave birth to our first son.  There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child.   If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
Click to expand...


Again, you are talking like your personal emotions define reality.  I feel a lot less upset over the child of a total stranger dying than I do over one of my own dying, God forbid.  Does that make the stranger's child less of a child, less alive, than mine?

Do not attempt to tell us what we should consider important, and definitely don't attempt to do it by telling us how "morally superior" you consider yourself to be, and how we're supposed to try to be more like you.  I for one do not aspire to be a person who expects human beings to "earn" relevance and value by way of my feelings about them.  I also do not aspire to be a person who congratulates myself on how "compassionate" I am based on voting tax money to fund a bureaucracy to deal with people so I don't have to.  If YOU really care about children, rather than about your own self-image, put some skin in the game by doing something personal to help them.

Oh, and FYI, one of the biggest obstacles to improving infant mortality is leftist PC bullshit.  Blacks, just for example, have a much higher incidence of infant mortality than white people do, but researchers are hindered in exploring reasons why by the pervasiveness of leftist ideas that it's "racist" to even consider that there might be any physiological difference in racial and ethnic groups beyond skin pigment.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.
Click to expand...


You leftists are poster children for the cliche "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  You learn to mouth medical terms like "embryo" and "fetus", but you're too pig-stupid and agenda-driven to bother learning what they mean, so you just ASSume that because they're different words, they mean different things.

In actual fact, "embryo" and "fetus" are terms denoting STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, not completely different objects.

And don't even get me started on the level of biological ignorance necessary to try to draw analogies between utterly different life forms which don't even belong to the same taxonomical KINGDOM.  I'd be embarrassed to bring up birds in a discussion of mammals, personally; but then, I have an actual education.


----------



## Death Angel

Cecilie1200 said:


> In actual fact, "embryo" and "fetus" are terms denoting STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, not completely different objects


Very insightful. Thank you. And yes, despite what they say, they use those terms to dehumanize the child and justify their idiotology


----------



## LilOlLady

Death Angel said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yout president, Donald Trump, has done more to help the "needy" than the left EVER will.
Click to expand...

Like what? More than 750,000 could lose food stamps under Trump proposal, many the poorest of the poor


----------



## Death Angel

LilOlLady said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yout president, Donald Trump, has done more to help the "needy" than the left EVER will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what?
Click to expand...

Brought more blacks, hispanics and injuns back to the workforce than any other president


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no child before birth. It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth.
> 
> 
> 
> You say you don't want to argue then you keep making these sophist's arguments.
> A child is fully developed and capable of life outside the womb long before actual delivery. It would be better brought to full term but many children are born prematurely and wind up perfectly fine.
> If you don't want to argue stop with the non-scientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right? To say there’s no child before birth is the most idiotic thing I’ve heard, in a long time.
Click to expand...


Didn't you know that it magically transforms into a child from whatever object it was before while passing through the birth canal?


----------



## LilOlLady

Death Angel said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yout president, Donald Trump, has done more to help the "needy" than the left EVER will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brought more blacks, hispanics and injuns back to the workforce than any other president
Click to expand...

Yeah, working on jobs that throw them way under the poverty line. The jobs he says he created were minimum wage that did not pay the rent and buy food so they ended up getting subsidies like housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc paid for by the taxpayers and raising the deficit.
At least one-fourth of Native Americans live in poverty, the highest poverty rate of any racial group in the United States. On many reservations, unemployment exceeds 40 percent. Tens of thousands of Native Americans, both on and off the reservation, were having difficulty obtaining adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care before the shutdown. These problems have only gotten worse as the shutdown prevents federal funding — a major source of resources — from reaching the reservation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no child before birth. It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth.
> 
> 
> 
> You say you don't want to argue then you keep making these sophist's arguments.
> A child is fully developed and capable of life outside the womb long before actual delivery. It would be better brought to full term but many children are born prematurely and wind up perfectly fine.
> If you don't want to argue stop with the non-scientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right? To say there’s no child before birth is the most idiotic thing I’ve heard, in a long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Childbirth is demarcation line between development of the fetus and the child. The fetus is a potential person and as such has certain protections under the law.  It certainly does not have full rights of a person.
Click to expand...


There's no such thing as a "potential person".  That is a made-up fiction of people who have little scientific education and an agenda to push.  And legal protections have nothing to do with whether or not a human is a human.  I seem to recall leftists loving to talk about a time when black people did not have legal protections and rights under the law; I'm sure you'd agree that didn't make them any less human beings and people.

Childbirth IS the demarcation line between fetus and newborn; however, that's not the same thing as saying "line between object and person", because "fetus" doesn't mean "non-person" or any of the other things you think it means.  It actually means "offspring at the development stage of eight weeks of gestation to birth", just as "neonatal" means "offspring from birth to 4 weeks after birth".  You wouldn't consider a 3-week-old baby to not be a person simply because there's a medical term for that stage which is different from "baby", would you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control work but they have to be used. *Birth control pills* are very *effective*. They're most *effective* when* taken correctly*. Less than *1 out of 100 women *will get pregnant each year if they always take the *pill each* day as directed. So why are there so many unwanted pregnancies resulting in abortions? Because the majority of women are stupid, reckless and irresponsible knowing if they are pregnant there is *"abortions on demand"* If abortions were illegal there would be less unwanted pregnancies. The *first* rubber condom was produced in *1855*, and by the late 1850s several major rubber companies were mass-producing, among other items, rubber *condoms*. Condoms also cut down on STDs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be controversial but I don’t think people should look to birth control as the solution. I’m not against birth-control, but 1)  many young people are irresponsible and don’t use it properly and 2) It’s not foolproof  and often becomes a false sense of security.  It’s like playing Russian roulette.
> 
> I think everyone has to have a complete mindset shift on these topics (sex, pregnancy, abortion )  The problem is that in today’s society, young people are brainwashed to believe that sex can be completely severed from its life-giving potential, which goes against reality.   They are encouraged to have sex, they’re told it’s no big deal, that it doesn’t have life-changing consequences, which goes against the reality.   The way they are taught (brainwashed) about sex is a recipe for disaster.  And I think that’s by design, BTW, but I digress.
> 
> So I think the entire approach needs to change, people need to never forget that sex is the act that creates babies.   And it has other potential consequences. *Cause and effect.*  People need to stop ignoring  reality. And if they know that, then willingly having sex KNOWING the consequences, is tacitly consenting to the consequences, including pregnancy.
> 
> Also, speaking of birth control, please watch this video. If even half of what she saying is true, then this is criminal and pure evil.  And explains a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that would be nice along with people respecting others.  Parents becoming good role models and everyone treating others as they would like to be treated.  Now, back to the real world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one thing’s for sure, the way things have been does not work. They throw condoms at kids and say have fun! Then when something goes wrong just kill your baby! It doesn’t work. Look at all the young people who have STDs, look at all the unwanted pregnancies or babies out of wedlock. It just doesn’t work.  A different approach is needed and I don’t see why you would be against that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t just throw condoms at them and say have fun, they educate them to act responsibly and part of that means understanding that they may have sex anyway so at least be protected.
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
Click to expand...


Yeah, and how's that "educate them to be responsible while assuming they won't be and there's nothing to do about it" working out?  How about the whole "making it all about Preidential voting" agenda?  That helping any?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Dragonlady said:


> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion. There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property". Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter. God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.


Abortion is legal in all fifty states...some states more restrictive, some not restrictive at all (in fact it amounts to legalized infanticide in a few states)
I'm not sure what you are complaining about.


----------



## Cecilie1200

I c h i g o said:


> Nothing like hearing Pro-choicers invoke historical geno-cides like slavery and the Holocaust to rally their cause as if harassing women at clinics is the same thing as running the Underground Railroad.
> 
> View attachment 262043



And oddly enough, they're applying the same "logic" and de-humanization to unborn children that slave-owners and Nazis did to their victims.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Cecilie1200 said:


> There's no such thing as a "potential person". That is a made-up fiction of people who have little scientific education and an agenda to push


Calling a child in utero a "potential person" is like calling a slave a "potential human being".


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it is not about Christianity but *Morality* which is an inborn trait in all humans.
> You may ignorantly believe the constitution is in charge but the reality is that *GOD is in charg*e. Writers of the Constitution were Christians. All of the signers were* Protestant Christians* with one exception, Charles Carroll of Maryland, who was *Roman Catholic.* LMAO
> Abortion may not be a crime in this country but in eyes of GOD it is a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would God be concerned? He/She aborts about a quarter of embryos (miscarriages).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.
> 
> Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.
> 
> I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their own lives.
> Not your business.
Click to expand...


No, you may feel you need an explanation for why people die, but we don't actually "need to explain".  YOU need to explain why you think the fact that people die means it's okay for you to kill them, because that's some serial killer shit right there.

"I simply support the personal choice to kill people who are inconvenient to you.  It's none of your business if other people are killed."

Yeah, keep hoping we're going to accept that you're a rational person without looking at what you're really saying.


----------



## dblack

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential person". That is a made-up fiction of people who have little scientific education and an agenda to push
> 
> 
> 
> Calling a child in utero a "potential person" is like calling a slave a "potential human being".
Click to expand...


Anyone who's studied consciousness knows better. The mind isn't the same as a physical body and self-awareness doesn't manifest until well after birth.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing like hearing Pro-choicers invoke historical geno-cides like slavery and the Holocaust to rally their cause as if harassing women at clinics is the same thing as running the Underground Railroad.
> 
> View attachment 262043
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly enough, they're applying the same "logic" and de-humanization to unborn children that slave-owners and Nazis did to their victims.
Click to expand...


No they don't.  Having a child is the most personal, life-changing decision you can make.  Even more than the decision to get married.  Being a parent is forever, even if you give the child up for adoption, your life is forever altered.

People who believe in choice, believe that a child is entitled to, and owed far more than just existence.  It is owed the right to have a decent life with parents who both love and want him or her, but parents who have the ability to provide the child with both the necessities of life and the ability to thrive and become productive members of society.  Bringing more poor children born into circumstances that will provide neither, would seem to be entirely counterproductive.

Unwanted children tend to do poorly in life.  They're far more likely to end up in prison, on welfare, or in other ways, are not positive members of society.  "Right to lifers" are the same people who insist that it does the USA no good to import poor people from Third World countries, would rather the American poor be forced to reproduce to the maximum capacity possible.

How are you going to cope with all of the abandoned children, and poor families who cannot feed or clothe their offspring?


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  I get that you guys have to use words like "embyro" or "fetus", because you gotta dehumanize who you advocate killing!    But everyone else knows the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, everyone else knows the reality they want to believe in.
> Here is another set of definitions of “child”:
> 
> a person between birth and full growth.
> a son or daughter:
> a baby or infant.
> a human fetus.
> a childish person:
> the definition of child
Click to expand...


Yes, and you DO see number 4, do you not?

I hate to break it to you, but there are not multiple realities determined by what one believes.  There is just the one reality, and multiple perceptions of it.  Our perception fits the scientific facts of reality; yours doesn't.


----------



## Issa

Death Angel said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yout president, Donald Trump, has done more to help the "needy" than the left EVER will.
Click to expand...

By scamming people through universities and bankruptcies?


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.
> 
> Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.
> 
> I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their own lives.
> Not your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this profoundly stupid Abortion Talking Point has already been covered: "God kills babies so why can't we???"
> 
> 1. You do not have the power to create babies, not really. You can have sex, congrats. You cannot literally create the building blocks of life, you are not Creator and
> 
> 2. You do not determine their eternal destiny. In short,
> 
> 3. You are not God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree that I am not God.
> However, i did participate in the creation of babies that became children, then adults.
> So what?
> 
> I never said we SHOULD kill babies, or fetuses. However, we should also not play God and tell others how to believe and conduct their private lives related to pregnancy.
Click to expand...


Okay, so should we also not "play God" and tell others not to kill their annoying spouses for the insurance money?  Not "play God" and tell Susan Smith not to drown her children?  Or is it not "playing God" to tell people they can't "conduct their private lives" by killing people when those people have acquired value in your eyes, personally?

From where I sit, your belief that you decide who does and doesn't matter is the "playing God" here.


----------



## Issa

Death Angel said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yout president, Donald Trump, has done more to help the "needy" than the left EVER will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brought more blacks, hispanics and injuns back to the workforce than any other president
Click to expand...

He didnt do shit...the trend has been like that for the past 6 years or so.


----------



## RealDave

PoliticalChic said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
Click to expand...

 So, your God kills babies & you don't care.

I have never had an abortion.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Issa said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yout president, Donald Trump, has done more to help the "needy" than the left EVER will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brought more blacks, hispanics and injuns back to the workforce than any other president
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didnt do shit...the trend has been like that for the past 6 years or so.
Click to expand...


BS. You're just another ill informed left loon spewing nonsense the MSM indoctrinates you with. 

Totally incapable of independent thought or the capacity to actually learn anything


----------



## Death Angel

SassyIrishLass said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> 
> 
> Yout president, Donald Trump, has done more to help the "needy" than the left EVER will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brought more blacks, hispanics and injuns back to the workforce than any other president
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didnt do shit...the trend has been like that for the past 6 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS. You're just another ill informed left loon spewing nonsense the MSM indoctrinates you with.
> 
> Totally incapable of independent thought or the capacity to actually learn anything
Click to expand...

Just mor spong that Trump is profiting from Obama's coattails.  NOBODY believes that.


----------



## BlueGin

LilOlLady said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yout president, Donald Trump, has done more to help the "needy" than the left EVER will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brought more blacks, hispanics and injuns back to the workforce than any other president
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, working on jobs that throw them way under the poverty line. The jobs he says he created were minimum wage that did not pay the rent and buy food so they ended up getting subsidies like housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc paid for by the taxpayers and raising the deficit.
> At least one-fourth of Native Americans live in poverty, the highest poverty rate of any racial group in the United States. On many reservations, unemployment exceeds 40 percent. Tens of thousands of Native Americans, both on and off the reservation, were having difficulty obtaining adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care before the shutdown. These problems have only gotten worse as the shutdown prevents federal funding — a major source of resources — from reaching the reservation.
Click to expand...

Native Americans get free healthcare from IHS and have for years.

The shutdown only highlighted Democrat greed as you saw the government workers cleaning out all of the food bank stock for the poor ...after only being out of work for a week.


----------



## BlueGin

dblack said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential person". That is a made-up fiction of people who have little scientific education and an agenda to push
> 
> 
> 
> Calling a child in utero a "potential person" is like calling a slave a "potential human being".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who's studied consciousness knows better. The mind isn't the same as a physical body and self-awareness doesn't manifest until well after birth.
Click to expand...

And in progressives self awareness never manifests itself. Should we abort them all?


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is what makes it a life? Is a heartbeat enough? Or is it when it can live outside of the womb? Science has not told us that because it comes down to when does a life become a life. By your definition, letting someone who is on life support die would beki8lling them. Abortion should be kept legal but rare. The power of the state should not be used to enforce your beliefs. Persuasion should be used instead. The idea that a woman should have no say is absurd.
Click to expand...


Why is this a question for you?  Science HAS told us what defines the word "life".  That you don't know that is YOUR problem, not ours.

*Life*

Definition

_noun, plural: lives_

_noun, plural: lives_

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Life - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary

Abortion should be "legal but rare" WHY?  If there's nothing wrong with it such that it should be legal, why would you need or want it to be rare?  If it's a bad thing such that it should be rare, why should it be legal?  What's the logic to this statement?

If the power of the state should not be used to enforce OUR beliefs, why is it okay to use it to enforce YOURS?

The idea that a woman "has no say" because she can't decide to kill a child after she's created it is nonsensical.  She DOES have a say; it comes at the point where she does, or does not, create a child.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlueGin said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential person". That is a made-up fiction of people who have little scientific education and an agenda to push
> 
> 
> 
> Calling a child in utero a "potential person" is like calling a slave a "potential human being".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who's studied consciousness knows better. The mind isn't the same as a physical body and self-awareness doesn't manifest until well after birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in progressives self awareness never manifests itself. Should we abort them all?
Click to expand...


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

dblack said:


> Anyone who's studied consciousness knows better. The mind isn't the same as a physical body and self-awareness doesn't manifest until well after birth.


Are you claiming this, an apparently under developed sense of self consciousness, gives government the right to simply murder an otherwise viable human being?  Amazingly arrogant presumption.


----------



## Death Angel

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who's studied consciousness knows better. The mind isn't the same as a physical body and self-awareness doesn't manifest until well after birth.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming this, an apparently under developed sense of self consciousness, gives government the right to simply murder an otherwise viable human being?  Amazingly arrogant presumption.
Click to expand...

This belief opens a lot of possibilities for the left to murder.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  I get that you guys have to use words like "embyro" or "fetus", because you gotta dehumanize who you advocate killing!    But everyone else knows the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is whether it is a life. A unborn child may not necessarily be a life.
Click to expand...


Only if he's stillborn.  Otherwise, an unborn child is definitely alive.


----------



## Dana7360

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find 'mind your own business' works well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of moron uses an argument which would allow every sort of crime and abomination????
> 
> Raise your paw, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn is not part of the mother's body, hence, she has no such right to murder it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are not your decisions to make - whether to have a baby, can the mother carry this child, can she raise it, what happens to her other child(ren), her life, her family.  Having a baby is a life commitment, and there are times in our lives when, for any number of reasons, we cannot give another child what they deserve to have to grow up strong and healthy in all regards.
> 
> *YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.*  You are also in no position to force a woman who comes to the painful decision that *she cannot have another child*, to carry that pregnancy forward.
> 
> If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away and you have one child per year until you reach menopause.  How you pay for all of this is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need another spanking?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 1.  I've force you to admit that the baby is NOT a part of the mother's body.
> 
> 2. I've stated the fact that nearly every abortion is for nothing more than 'convenience'....you know, like having your groceries delivered instead of crossing the street to pick them up. Barbaric allusion, huh?
> 
> 3. It is certainly my business if I belong to a society that I believe should protect human life....not one like your predecessors:
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 4. I said nothing about raising the child. Your attempt to change the subject means I win again, huh?
> 5. "If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away ...."
> Wait....you imagine (I almost said 'think') that that sentence makes any sense.
> 
> 6. "*YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.* "
> I believe that even a Democrat knows how that child came to be.
> Obviating that cause is close to 100% in the woman's control.
> 
> 
> 
> If you need another lesson, I'd be happy to oblige.
Click to expand...



I couldn't get past the first point you tried to make.

If it's separate from the woman's body then remove it form her body and let it be separate. Let it cry, eat, breathe and do all things that separate entities do.

What's that? It doesn't have a mouth? It doesn't have a brain? It doesn't have a body? If it's removed from the woman's body it can't develop?

I'm sure the rest of your post is as ridiculous as the first point and it's a total waste of time to read it. If you reply I'm sure it will contain the same ridiculous claims and lies and isn't worth reading. So I'm not going to. 

Rave and rant your ridiculous lies to yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
Click to expand...


So you think God is beholden to your personal perception of "efficiency" and the manner in which He does His job?

"The breath of life" is a poetic term to express the perceptions of people with very little other way to tell if someone is alive.  Are you really going to be bound by the scientific knowledge of Biblical era people?  As I recall, you don't even like being bound by the Constitution because it's "too old" and "outdated", but you're okay with ignoring centuries of medical discovery?


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
Click to expand...


Liberals want to pander to their special interest groups in order get more political power for themselves, and can't tell the difference between "helping" and "throwing tax money at".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
Click to expand...


Given that there is a difference between people dying and other people deliberately killing them - a difference which has been pointed out to you so many times I've lost count this post is yet another example of you not earning the respect you endlessly whinge about not getting.  Why should anyone take you seriously, or even be polite to you, when you continue to parrot the same asinine, nonsensical points over and over as if they haven't been addressed repeatedly?

Furthermore, it is disingenuous to talk about pro-lifers "quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion" when it is invariably the PRO-ABORTS who bring it up first.  
So the REAL "non-starter" here is you bringing God into the discussion just so you'll have the straw man to divert to.

God gave humans free will on everything.  Please engage your heretofore unused brain to recognize that that does not mean every choice we make has His approval.  From where God sits, I have the free will to choose to slap you pie-eyed, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't still be sinful and wrong.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Death Angel said:


> This belief opens a lot of possibilities for the left to murder.


I think that's the whole point. And the left wants to be free to murder by pretending somehow the child murdered was not a child at all. Just like killing a slave could be justified because slaves were considered less than human by the intellectual ancestors of today's leftist abortionists.


----------



## Dana7360

denmark said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot believe a woman can be such a Dumb Ass. GOD does not cause miscarriages. WE are imperfect humans and sometimes there is a defect in the egg, etc that cause a miscarriage. Sometimes is it drugs, etc and GOD does not give you drugs. GOD does not cause disease and disabilities.  *Chromosomal abnormalities* are the most common cause* of miscarriage*. ... These abnormalities result in a non-viable embryo and ultimately a pregnancy loss, including miscarriages such as a blighted ovum *miscarriage* or chemical pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> If not influenced by Free Will, then it’s God’s doing, “Dimb Ass”.
> All powerful God works in mysterious ways, like killing baby embryos by causing biological “abnormalities”, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are very telling.  It's common for anti-God people to support abortion.  Makes perfect sense, as abortion has a demonic origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not “anti-God”; i have no beliefs about supernatural concepts used in religions.
> 
> Those who believe there is a God need to explain why an all-powerful and benevolent “saviour” would allow MANY miscarriages among innocent women.
> 
> I simply support the privacy and independent beliefs of women and their families to make the right decision about their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You're a sadist. Literally. Your mind, on this issue, runs on the derived teachings of one Donatien Alphonse François, better known to history as Le Marquis de Sade. You just didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think YOU are a sadist. LOL.
> Saying someone is something does not make it so. Fantasy is not reality, but you may not know that .
> Do you know how to justify your belief?
Click to expand...



The person you replied to shows just how down right stupid they are and doesn't know the meaning of words in the English language.

Sadist for example. I didn't see you take any pleasure in inflicting pain, punishment or humiliation on anyone. I have seen and do see the poster you're replying to getting pleasure from inflicting pain, punishment and humiliation on people. These people want to punish only women for having sex and want to humiliate them for having sex and having a child. 

So what that person is doing is projecting their behavior on you. It's classic conservative manipulation and passive aggression.

For all you specially stupid people who don't know what the real meaning of the word sadist is, here's what good old Webster's says:

Definition of SADIST

*n of sadist*


: one characterized by sadism : a person who takes pleasure in inflicting pain, punishment, or humiliation on others


----------



## PoliticalChic

RealDave said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your God kills babies & you don't care.
> 
> I have never had an abortion.
Click to expand...




My only concern is how dumb, and poorly brought up you've been.


Being RealDumb, it doesn't seem to concern you.


----------



## dblack

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who's studied consciousness knows better. The mind isn't the same as a physical body and self-awareness doesn't manifest until well after birth.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming this, an apparently under developed sense of self consciousness, gives government the right to simply murder an otherwise viable human being?
Click to expand...


Where would you get that idea? I don't think government has any business making these kinds of judgements. In my view, the discussion over whether a fetus is a "person" or not is mostly irrelevant. To me it's a matter of jurisdiction. I reject the idea that government has sovereignty over the contents of my body, regardless of what someone else might believe is in there. You might be convinced that an entire civilization is living in my bowels, but it gives government no right to monitor my shit.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dana7360 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby murderers don't like to br disturbed during their butchery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a clue.  If you think abortion is murder, don't have one.  The rest of it is *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> 
> If it's not your vagina, and not your pregnancy, *SHUT THE FUCK UP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of moron uses an argument which would allow every sort of crime and abomination????
> 
> Raise your paw, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn is not part of the mother's body, hence, she has no such right to murder it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are not your decisions to make - whether to have a baby, can the mother carry this child, can she raise it, what happens to her other child(ren), her life, her family.  Having a baby is a life commitment, and there are times in our lives when, for any number of reasons, we cannot give another child what they deserve to have to grow up strong and healthy in all regards.
> 
> *YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.*  You are also in no position to force a woman who comes to the painful decision that *she cannot have another child*, to carry that pregnancy forward.
> 
> If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away and you have one child per year until you reach menopause.  How you pay for all of this is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need another spanking?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 1.  I've force you to admit that the baby is NOT a part of the mother's body.
> 
> 2. I've stated the fact that nearly every abortion is for nothing more than 'convenience'....you know, like having your groceries delivered instead of crossing the street to pick them up. Barbaric allusion, huh?
> 
> 3. It is certainly my business if I belong to a society that I believe should protect human life....not one like your predecessors:
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 4. I said nothing about raising the child. Your attempt to change the subject means I win again, huh?
> 5. "If you believe that women should be forced to bear children they do not want and cannot raise, then I suggest you have all of your birth control taken away ...."
> Wait....you imagine (I almost said 'think') that that sentence makes any sense.
> 
> 6. "*YOU, are in no position to judge whether someone is capable of making that commitment to another child.* "
> I believe that even a Democrat knows how that child came to be.
> Obviating that cause is close to 100% in the woman's control.
> 
> 
> 
> If you need another lesson, I'd be happy to oblige.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get past the first point you tried to make.
> 
> If it's separate from the woman's body then remove it form her body and let it be separate. Let it cry, eat, breathe and do all things that separate entities do.
> 
> What's that? It doesn't have a mouth? It doesn't have a brain? It doesn't have a body? If it's removed from the woman's body it can't develop?
> 
> I'm sure the rest of your post is as ridiculous as the first point and it's a total waste of time to read it. If you reply I'm sure it will contain the same ridiculous claims and lies and isn't worth reading. So I'm not going to.
> 
> Rave and rant your ridiculous lies to yourself.
Click to expand...



1. I didn't say 'separate.' I said 'part of.'

Caught you lying, huh?



2. "...it's a total waste of time to read it."

Another lie: you read it.
So many times that lie is the best your sort can come up with.



3. Remember when I proved that there is a specific reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution, and you pretended you couldn't find it?
Three strikes and you're out.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

dblack said:


> Where would you get that idea? I don't think government has any business making these kinds of judgements. In my view, the discussion over whether a fetus is a "person" or not is mostly irrelevant. To me it's a matter of jurisdiction. I reject the idea that government has sovereignty over the contents of my body, regardless of what someone else might believe is in there. You might be convinced that an entire civilization is living in my bowels, but it gives government no right to monitor my shit.


I got it from you. If you don't believe the government has the right to abort then don't talk about the undeveloped consciousness of the unborn in the context of the non personhood of slaves and the unborn.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Cecilie1200 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against abortion...but he is right...the conservatives are hypocrites....they care about the fetus but they dont care about it after it is born. Infact they dont care for the desperate, the refugees, the poor it is confusing because that's what they preach all year long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals always believe if they are for murdering babies in the womb that exempts them from helping the needy. It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals want to help those in need, you asshats fight it & bitch about poor people every fricken day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals want to pander to their special interest groups in order get more political power for themselves, and can't tell the difference between "helping" and "throwing tax money at".
Click to expand...




I believe that there are two explanations for the Democrat/Liberal support for infanticide...


1. *1.The greatest claim for voters that the Democrats have is absolving their adherents of any personal responsibility.

Up to and including an inconvenient birth.*
*

and

2. A kind of anachronistic loyalty to their past:
Their predecessors, the Soviet Bolsheviks were wayyyyy ahead: “the Soviets legalized abortion on demand in 1920…” 
Legacies of 1917 in Contemporary Russian Public Health: Addiction, HIV, and Abortion*


----------



## buttercup

LilOlLady said:


> *The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights*
> On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has been translated into more than 350 languages worldwide, and more than 100 African languages.



Amen. I also love this quote, from Mother Teresa:

"Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign."


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Dana7360 said:


> Sadist for example. I didn't see you take any pleasure in inflicting pain, punishment or humiliation on anyone. I have seen and do see the poster you're replying to getting pleasure from inflicting pain, punishment and humiliation on people. These people want to punish only women for having sex and want to humiliate them for having sex and having a child.


Have all the sex you like. Don't murder an innocent third party as part of your fun, however.


----------



## PoliticalChic

buttercup said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights*
> On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has been translated into more than 350 languages worldwide, and more than 100 African languages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen. I also love this quote, from Mother Teresa:
> 
> "Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign."
Click to expand...




How about this?


Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, *by man* must his blood be shed.  The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.    The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.
*
. Exodus 21:12-14*

*Leviticus 24:17 and 21*

*Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31*

*Deuteronomy 19:11-13*


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing like hearing Pro-choicers invoke historical geno-cides like slavery and the Holocaust to rally their cause as if harassing women at clinics is the same thing as running the Underground Railroad.
> 
> View attachment 262043
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly enough, they're applying the same "logic" and de-humanization to unborn children that slave-owners and Nazis did to their victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Having a child is the most personal, life-changing decision you can make.  Even more than the decision to get married.  Being a parent is forever, even if you give the child up for adoption, your life is forever altered.
Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing, Captain Obvious.  Trust a leftist to sanctimoniously "inform" people of things which are painfully apparent to everyone, as though they're having a profoundly original epiphany.



Dragonlady said:


> People who believe in choice, believe that a child is entitled to, and owed far more than just existence.  It is owed the right to have a decent life with parents who both love and want him or her, but parents who have the ability to provide the child with both the necessities of life and the ability to thrive and become productive members of society.  Bringing more poor children born into circumstances that will provide neither, would seem to be entirely counterproductive.



People who believe in abortion and try to hide what they believe by erroneously calling it "choice" believe that reality is formed by their own personal opinions, and they are "generously" conveying onto CERTAIN children the entitlement to existence by deigning to "feel" that they are children.  Once they have waved the magic "realness" wand of their own emotional response, they then want to be congratulated on their "compassion" because they pulled a lever in a ballot box for some politician who subsequently voted for a whole bunch of other people to give their money to a bureaucracy to pass out checks.

And for some reason, pro-aborts can never understand that "Better dead and dismembered than having a less-perfect life" is both easy to say when it's not themselves they're talking about, and evil.



Dragonlady said:


> Unwanted children tend to do poorly in life.  They're far more likely to end up in prison, on welfare, or in other ways, are not positive members of society.  "Right to lifers" are the same people who insist that it does the USA no good to import poor people from Third World countries, would rather the American poor be forced to reproduce to the maximum capacity possible.



Yes, life is hard for some people.  But again, it's easy to say, "Better dead than less-perfect" when it's someone else who's going to do the dying.

And unless you can show me someone on the right advocating the forced impregnation of poor women, you're cordially invited to go fuck yourself with your false and melodramatic presentation of "You can't kill your baby" as "My God, you FORCED her to be pregnant."

That shit right there is EXACTLY why you yourself are responsible for being treated with contempt.



Dragonlady said:


> How are you going to cope with all of the abandoned children, and poor families who cannot feed or clothe their offspring?



Well, not by killing them, so right off the bat I'm way ahead of YOUR solution.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your God kills babies & you don't care.
> 
> I have never had an abortion.
Click to expand...


So you think God should be beholden to YOU for morality.  HE has a universe to run, which involves everything eventually dying.  What's YOUR excuse?  Oh, right, you want to pander for feminist votes.


----------



## SAYIT

Dragonlady said:


> No they don't.  Having a child is the most personal, life-changing decision you can make.  Even more than the decision to get married.  Being a parent is forever, even if you give the child up for adoption, your life is forever altered.


 More than murdering the child? And how does the alteration justify the murder?


Cecilie1200 said:


> Thanks for sharing, Captain Obvious. Trust a leftist to sanctimoniously "inform" people of things which are painfully apparent to everyone, as though they're having a profoundly original epiphany.


Remarkably the most obvious thing sanctimonious leftists ignore is that abortion absolutely ruins the life of the child ... forever.


----------



## dblack

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you get that idea? I don't think government has any business making these kinds of judgements. In my view, the discussion over whether a fetus is a "person" or not is mostly irrelevant. To me it's a matter of jurisdiction. I reject the idea that government has sovereignty over the contents of my body, regardless of what someone else might believe is in there. You might be convinced that an entire civilization is living in my bowels, but it gives government no right to monitor my shit.
> 
> 
> 
> I got it from you. If you don't believe the government has the right to abort then don't talk about the undeveloped consciousness of the unborn in the context of the non personhood of slaves and the unborn.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'll talk about whatever I want, whenever I want. Thanks.


----------



## sparky

buttercup said:


> "Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not *depend*, and must not be *contingent,* on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign."



But that _right_ to life *depends* on , is *contingent *on, paternal _obligation_

~S~


----------



## I c h i g o

Cecilie1200 said:


> Trust a leftist to sanctimoniously "inform" people of things which are painfully apparent to everyone, as though they're having a profoundly original epiphany.



I think you have mistaken me as a "leftist". By no means, I am one of those brands.


----------



## Flopper

LilOlLady said:


> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."


No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.


----------



## Cecilie1200

I c h i g o said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust a leftist to sanctimoniously "inform" people of things which are painfully apparent to everyone, as though they're having a profoundly original epiphany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have mistaken me as a "leftist". By no means, I am one of those brands.
Click to expand...


I think you have mistaken a post addressing someone else as addressing you.


----------



## sparky

Flopper said:


> In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person



Rather _telling _how the religmo's never debated _that_ Flopper......~S~


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
Click to expand...


LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.


----------



## beagle9

Why the Demon-crats are defending this so desperately, is because they figure that if they lose on any issue at this point, then Trump is president again. So take it just the way it is, that they will defend the indefensible at this point.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

initforme said:


> While I disagree with abortion I do not understand why some don't like contraception.  The pill has been one of the greatest things invented.  Is it perfect?  No.  But it has allowed many women to not get pregnant.  What is the argument against contraception?


None.  

That argument is who pays for it.   The ones who are doing the fucking should pay for it.


----------



## sparky

Tipsycatlover said:


> That argument is who pays for it. The ones who are doing the fucking should pay for it.



_bad bad bad_ Tipsy.....


----------



## LilOlLady

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
Click to expand...

Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal. 
There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.


----------



## LilOlLady

Have any of you Pro-Choice women ever wonder why a group of* old men and women* way past of the age of impregnating anyone and getting pregnant and have had their kids and enjoying their grand kids do not want you to have any kids? Could it be they do not want to maybe have to *help you take care of your kids *at some time with* financial assistance of social services and tax breaks, *etc? Do you think they give a s@$t about your bodies and your kids? They make money when you abort your unborn babies. I am talking about the old men and women and others who make and pass these abortion laws. They don't think that they may contribute to the economy and be future votes.


----------



## LilOlLady

_Isaiah. 5;29..._Woe to those who call *evil good and good evil,* who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
Click to expand...


But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers', and forget all about the fact that you've been actively supporting a complete scumbag for the last two years.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The RW redefines legal definitions endlessly over this issue, even though the SC has held that abortion is NOT murder. Nevertheless, it is all academic. The Right is simply not going to be given the power to expand government control over women's bodies any more than they already have. Throwing doctors in prison is a ridicules "solution". The Hillbilly states' new laws will be held unconstitutional. If not, the laws will be ignored, and abortion will proceed as it has for thousands of years. Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.



The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
Click to expand...


Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> The RW redefines legal definitions endlessly over this issue, even though the SC has held that abortion is NOT murder. Nevertheless, it is all academic. The Right is simply not going to be given the power to expand government control over women's bodies any more than they already have. Throwing doctors in prison is a ridicules "solution". The Hillbilly states' new laws will be held unconstitutional. If not, the laws will be ignored, and abortion will proceed as it has for thousands of years. Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.



Prohibition is owned by the dems, dumbass


----------



## SAYIT

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..
Click to expand...

10 week old "entity" preparing to join the world:


----------



## satrebil

SassyIrishLass said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RW redefines legal definitions endlessly over this issue, even though the SC has held that abortion is NOT murder. Nevertheless, it is all academic. The Right is simply not going to be given the power to expand government control over women's bodies any more than they already have. Throwing doctors in prison is a ridicules "solution". The Hillbilly states' new laws will be held unconstitutional. If not, the laws will be ignored, and abortion will proceed as it has for thousands of years. Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition is owned by the dems, dumbass
Click to expand...


Don't worry, he'll come back and give us the "parties switched sides" diatribe. Leftists never own up to shit.


----------



## dblack

SAYIT said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 week old "fetus" preparing to join the world:
Click to expand...


Caption this photo...


----------



## SAYIT

dblack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 week old "entity" preparing to join the world:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caption this photo...
Click to expand...

You think I'm trying to trick you or do you not know how to copy and Google?

*https://assets.babycenter.com/ims/2015/01/pregnancy-week-10-fingernails_square.jpg?width=600*


----------



## Coyote

satrebil said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
Click to expand...

And race has what to with it?


----------



## satrebil

Coyote said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And race has what to with it?  Nothing.
Click to expand...


"My statistics count but yours don't!!!"

- Leftists


----------



## Coyote

satrebil said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And race has what to with it?  Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My statistics count but yours don't!!!"
> 
> - Leftists
Click to expand...

“I’m going to insert something completely irrelevent and claim victory”. Rightists.


----------



## satrebil

Coyote said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And race has what to with it?  Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My statistics count but yours don't!!!"
> 
> - Leftists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “I’m going to insert something completely irrelevent and claim victory”. Rightists.
Click to expand...


I didn't claim victory in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
Click to expand...


...and yet, the republicans seem to have learned nothing from it~!


----------



## LilOlLady

There are many stages of human development but the end results if always death but there is life from the beginning to the end. *From conception, *the *zygote's* genome (the* fertilized egg*) is a combination of the DNA in each gamete and contains *all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. AKA life. *


----------



## percysunshine

All we really need is an abortion tax...right? Governments love taxes.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> There are many stages of human development but the end results if always death but there is life from the beginning to the end. *From conception, *the *zygote's* genome (the* fertilized egg*) is a combination of the DNA in each gamete and contains *all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. AKA life. *



Well, you have convinced me. By all means, don't get an abortion! I support your right not to do that!


----------



## LilOlLady

When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.


----------



## busybee01

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
Click to expand...


When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.



When we desensitize ourselves to the redefined definitions of words, like, "abortion" is "murder", and so many other redefinitions that can be found in the novel, "Animal Farm", like, "everyone is created equal" means that, "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others", then, authoritarian Big Brother (from "1984") becomes our dictatorial leader. As much as he may think that is true, it is not, and we are not sheep of the RW.


----------



## busybee01

LilOlLady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
Click to expand...


Is a person who depends on a machine really alive? In most states you can take such a person off of a machine and allow them to die. Is that murder? Is a fetus that depends on a woman's body really a person? The fact is we should be using persuasion to reduce the number of abortions. The number of abortions have dropped in this country even with no  strict abortion laws.


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


The radical religious Right in this country have lost their collective minds. I read this OP and these folks think they are God. Who in the f... do you people think you are to tell others it's not their body? Are you out of your friggin mind? What a disgusting bunch of nuts. Have you read the Constitution? Get out of here with your lunatic talk.


----------



## Vandalshandle

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> The radical religious Right in this country have lost their collective minds. I read this OP and these folks think they are God. Who in the f... do you people think you are to tell others it's not their body? Are you out of your friggin mind? What a disgusting bunch of nuts. Have you read the Constitution? Get out of here with your lunatic talk.
Click to expand...


Now, how can you possibly say that? Anyone in the GOP will tell you that the solution to all of our problems is to imprison as many democratic voting MD's as possible!


----------



## BWK

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to the redefined definitions of words, like, "abortion" is "murder", and so many other redefinitions that can be found in the novel, "Animal Farm", like, "everyone is created equal" means that, "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others", then, authoritarian Big Brother (from "1984") becomes our dictatorial leader. As much as he may think that is true, it is not, and we are not sheep of the RW.
Click to expand...

But they would have you be Sheep, because their subordinates are. They no longer possess the ability to use their own minds. They are consumed by the propaganda of the religious, radical, cult of the  Right.


----------



## BWK

Vandalshandle said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> The radical religious Right in this country have lost their collective minds. I read this OP and these folks think they are God. Who in the f... do you people think you are to tell others it's not their body? Are you out of your friggin mind? What a disgusting bunch of nuts. Have you read the Constitution? Get out of here with your lunatic talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, how can you possibly say that? Anyone in the GOP will tell you that the solution to all of our problems is to imprison as many MD's as possible!
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy. They're crazy as hell.


----------



## Vandalshandle

BWK said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to the redefined definitions of words, like, "abortion" is "murder", and so many other redefinitions that can be found in the novel, "Animal Farm", like, "everyone is created equal" means that, "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others", then, authoritarian Big Brother (from "1984") becomes our dictatorial leader. As much as he may think that is true, it is not, and we are not sheep of the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they would have you be Sheep, because their subordinates are. They no longer possess the ability to use their own minds. They are consumed by the propaganda of the religious, radical, cult of the  Right.
Click to expand...


Well, there IS that,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## BWK

LilOlLady said:


> When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.


These folks are out of their minds.


----------



## BWK

Vandalshandle said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to the redefined definitions of words, like, "abortion" is "murder", and so many other redefinitions that can be found in the novel, "Animal Farm", like, "everyone is created equal" means that, "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others", then, authoritarian Big Brother (from "1984") becomes our dictatorial leader. As much as he may think that is true, it is not, and we are not sheep of the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they would have you be Sheep, because their subordinates are. They no longer possess the ability to use their own minds. They are consumed by the propaganda of the religious, radical, cult of the  Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there IS that,,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...

Yep!


----------



## BWK

LilOlLady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
Click to expand...

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.


----------



## BWK

LilOlLady said:


> _Isaiah. 5;29..._Woe to those who call *evil good and good evil,* who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.


  Good, now let's make sure the woman continues to see the light through the health of her own body.


----------



## BWK

LilOlLady said:


> There are many stages of human development but the end results if always death but there is life from the beginning to the end. *From conception, *the *zygote's* genome (the* fertilized egg*) is a combination of the DNA in each gamete and contains *all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. AKA life. *


I knew someone would slip up. The key phrase here is, "form a new individual." Meaning we do not have a developed human being with a developed brain that experiences consciousness or thought, or life. It experiences nothing. The woman's body and her health is her priority and right. And what other person has the right to tell her otherwise? No one, because no one else is God.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
Click to expand...


There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.


----------



## buttercup

busybee01 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
Click to expand...


Wow.  I can't believe some of you are still bringing up the WORST, dumbest objections of all.  I mean, seriously, you're only proving the OP correct.   There are some decent prochoice arguments, but "it's not a human being" is up there in the top 3 worst, most ignorant of all.  Basic biology, dude.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
Click to expand...


The brain begins to develop early on.  By the time most surgical abortions occur, there are brain waves, not to mention a beating heart, a little face and body, etc.  You are picking an arbitrary point that YOU think is what determines human life, but it's not true and it's not scientific.  As has been stated repeatedly, there are numerous different stages of human life.  Starting with zygote and going all the way up to old age.  In EACH stage you have a human being, who has the characteristics and abilities that he or she _is supposed to have_, at that stage of life.  Just as a newborn is not supposed to be able to do Algebra, a preborn is not supposed to be able to do the same things a newborn does. But that doesn't make the preborn any less human. From a scientific standpoint, human life begins at conception, whether you like that or not.


----------



## SweetSue92

busybee01 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is what makes it a life? Is a heartbeat enough? Or is it when it can live outside of the womb? Science has not told us that because it comes down to when does a life become a life. By your definition, letting someone who is on life support die would beki8lling them. Abortion should be kept legal but rare. The power of the state should not be used to enforce your beliefs. Persuasion should be used instead. The idea that a woman should have no say is absurd.
Click to expand...


How do you know what my definition of "life support" is? You didn't ask me--you assumed. But let's take this example--someone on life support, and a developing human in the womb, and extrapolate them out. Neither can speak for themselves in any case. However, in the case of the life in the womb, if left to itself, the baby will develop a heart, brain, limbs, lungs and be born, and have, presumably, a healthy and autonomous life. In the latter case, the life will be hooked up to machines to breathe and be fed and kept alive on a very small chance that some life may return. To the end the life in the case of abortion, intrusive and horrid practices need to take place. To SUSTAIN the life in many cases of "life support", many resources and intrusive practices must be maintained, such as ventilators, tube feeding, etc. 

In short, do not take intrusive and horrid means to END an innocent life.

And be sensible about taking great measures to sustain life.


----------



## SweetSue92

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you call the unborn in the womb *a fetus or a baby *it is still an alive being that has the right to life as all of us even those born with disabilities and the elderly past the age of viability. "Right to LIfe" is a GOD given right whether you believe in GOD or not does not prove he does not exist. Conception is the beginning of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BIRTH *is the beginning of life.   A fetus no rights, and is incapable of making decisions as to whether its family is capable of adding another member.  The rights of its mother, and her decisions are final.
> 
> The ONLY way you can give rights to the fetus is to take them away from the mother.  This way lies madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
Click to expand...


Oh goody another really Stupid Abortion Talking Point, one of my favorites: miscarriages happen, so let's abort the babies.

By that logic, you're gonna die, so I can murder you anyway.

The logic is so stupid it hurts my brain.


----------



## SweetSue92

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You leftists are poster children for the cliche "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  You learn to mouth medical terms like "embryo" and "fetus", but you're too pig-stupid and agenda-driven to bother learning what they mean, so you just ASSume that because they're different words, they mean different things.
> 
> In actual fact, "embryo" and "fetus" are terms denoting STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, not completely different objects.
> 
> And don't even get me started on the level of biological ignorance necessary to try to draw analogies between utterly different life forms which don't even belong to the same taxonomical KINGDOM.  I'd be embarrassed to bring up birds in a discussion of mammals, personally; but then, I have an actual education.
Click to expand...


If they could think better, they wouldn't be Leftists.


----------



## LilOlLady

A live aborted baby at 24 weeks is a fetus but a live birth at 24 weeks is a baby.?


----------



## PoliticalChic

busybee01 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
Click to expand...




How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.


----------



## RealDave

PoliticalChic said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
Click to expand...

 When is that?


----------



## RealDave

Tipsycatlover said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I disagree with abortion I do not understand why some don't like contraception.  The pill has been one of the greatest things invented.  Is it perfect?  No.  But it has allowed many women to not get pregnant.  What is the argument against contraception?
> 
> 
> 
> None.
> 
> That argument is who pays for it.   The ones who are doing the fucking should pay for it.
Click to expand...

 Who do you think is paying for it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

RealDave said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
Click to expand...




RealDave said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
Click to expand...




As soon as the two strands combine, at fertilization.
DNA identifies a human being.






1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”

"After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland





So very many things you never learned in government school.....must be why you're RealDumb.


----------



## BWK

Ghost of a Rider said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
Click to expand...

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  I can't believe some of you are still bringing up the WORST, dumbest objections of all.  I mean, seriously, you're only proving the OP correct.   There are some decent prochoice arguments, but "it's not a human being" is up there in the top 3 worst, most ignorant of all.  Basic biology, dude.
Click to expand...

You keep saying "human being." You want to have an intelligent, informative debate? Try having one. The fetus is not a fully developed human being with a fully developed brain, that experiences consciousness or life. You want to debate intelligently and informatively, take that argument and run it through the weeds by trying to destroy it, and see where you end up on the other side. Let me help you understand that through intelligence and information. You never come out the other side, because the other side of that argument doesn't exist. That would be making the best possible use of your intelligence and information skills.

Life - Wikipedia


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the two strands combine, at fertilization.
> DNA identifies a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So very many things you never learned in government school.....must be why you're RealDumb.
Click to expand...

Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins


----------



## PoliticalChic

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the two strands combine, at fertilization.
> DNA identifies a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So very many things you never learned in government school.....must be why you're RealDumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins
Click to expand...





That's not science.

This is.


*"Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg*




Human life begins in bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing ‘fireworks’ on film.

An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.

Scientists had seen the phenomenon occur in other animals but it is the first time is has been also shown to happen in humans.

*“To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”*

_Professor Teresa Woodruff, Northwestern University_

Not only is it an incredible spectacle, highlighting the very moment that a new life begins, the size of the flash can be used to determine the quality of the fertilised egg.

Researchers from Northwestern University, in Chicago, noticed that some of the eggs burn brighter than others, showing that they are more likely to produce a healthy baby.

“It’s a way of sorting egg quality in a way we’ve never been able to assess before. “All of biology starts at the time of fertilization, yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”

The bright flash occurs because when sperm enters and egg it triggers calcium to increase which releases zinc from the egg. As the zinc shoots out, it binds to small molecules which emit a fluorescence which can be picked up my camera microscopes.

Over the last six years this team has shown that zinc controls the decision to grow and change into a completely new genetic organism.

In the experiment, scientists use sperm enzyme rather than actual sperm to show what happens at the moment of conception.

In a companion paper published in Scientific Reports on March 18, a zinc spark is shown at the precise time a sperm enters a mouse egg.

This discovery was made by Zhang, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern.  Little is known about the events that occur at the time of fertilization, because it is difficult to capture the precise time of sperm entry.

The study will be published April 26 in Scientific Reports."
Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg




You should consider removing your support for Bolshevism.


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
Click to expand...

ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."


Life - Wikipedia


----------



## PoliticalChic

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."
> 
> 
> Life - Wikipedia
Click to expand...





As your post shows, you didn't.


Here's your 'god.'

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


----------



## deanrd

We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are. 

 Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next? 

 Will their next attack be directed at:

Gays 
blacks 
Muslims 
Hispanics

 We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press. 

But what group of Americans will they attack next?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

deanrd said:


> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?



Give your redundant crap a rest Derp. It's past old


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."
> 
> 
> Life - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As your post shows, you didn't.
> 
> 
> Here's your 'god.'
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
Click to expand...

You can't. You are not God. Which is why Life is only defined by your own philosophical or religious views. The very fact that you did not take the opportunity to debunk my link, and just used a gobbly goo explanation, just proves to us all how fos you are.     Life - Wikipedia


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give your redundant crap a rest Derp. It's past old
Click to expand...

Can you debunk this redundancy? Life - Wikipedia  Of course not. Only your own bs can mask the definition of life.


----------



## deanrd

PoliticalChic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."
> 
> 
> Life - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As your post shows, you didn't.
> 
> 
> Here's your 'god.'
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
Click to expand...

 Republicans want to take away healthcare for children and the disabled. They want to take away programs that help the elderly and the infirm. 
 Even their leader referring to soldiers who were captured during times of war said he likes the ones that weren’t captured. 

 Look how Republicans want to treat a young child who has been sexually assaulted by an adult male: 







How do you explain that? This monstrous.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
Click to expand...


First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life. However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.


----------



## deanrd

SassyIrishLass said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give your redundant crap a rest Derp. It's past old
Click to expand...

 I want to know. What group of Americans will Republicans attack next?
 They’re not going to try to get people healthcare. They’re not gonna get tax cuts for the middle class. They’re not going to promote education. 
They only exist to try to drag other people down. Who’s next? Who will be there next target? Do you know?


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."
> 
> 
> Life - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As your post shows, you didn't.
> 
> 
> Here's your 'god.'
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
Click to expand...

We'll, when you define it, as God, be sure to drop by and give us a heads up.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

deanrd said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give your redundant crap a rest Derp. It's past old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know. What group of Americans will Republicans attack next?
> They’re not going to try to get people healthcare. They’re not gonna get tax cuts for the middle class. They’re not going to promote education.
> They only exist to try to drag other people down. Who’s next? Who will be there next target? Do you know?
Click to expand...


Nobody cares Derp. You've worn your tired redundant shit out. No cred


----------



## PoliticalChic

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."
> 
> 
> Life - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As your post shows, you didn't.
> 
> 
> Here's your 'god.'
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't. You are not God. Which is why Life is only defined by your own philosophical or religious views. The very fact that you did not take the opportunity to debunk my link, and just used a gobbly goo explanation, just proves to us all how fos you are.     Life - Wikipedia
Click to expand...




As I showed, it is a biological definition.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

deanrd said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."
> 
> 
> Life - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As your post shows, you didn't.
> 
> 
> Here's your 'god.'
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans want to take away healthcare for children and the disabled. They want to take away programs that help the elderly and the infirm.
> Even their leader referring to soldiers who were captured during times of war said he likes the ones that weren’t captured.
> 
> Look how Republicans want to treat a young child who has been sexually assaulted by an adult male:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain that? This monstrous.
Click to expand...


I could be wrong but I don’t think the girl in the poster is supposed to represent a sexual assault victim. They’re just saying that she will (likely) be a _future _mother.


----------



## BWK

Ghost of a Rider said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
Click to expand...

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."
> 
> 
> Life - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As your post shows, you didn't.
> 
> 
> Here's your 'god.'
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't. You are not God. Which is why Life is only defined by your own philosophical or religious views. The very fact that you did not take the opportunity to debunk my link, and just used a gobbly goo explanation, just proves to us all how fos you are.     Life - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I showed, it is a biological definition.
Click to expand...

Is it? That's not what I read.T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.  *The biological definition is a theory, and no more.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?    T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. *
Click to expand...




Did you say 'fetus'?



*fetus (n.)*
late 14c., *"the young* while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of *young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,*"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary



Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.
Click to expand...


Would know better than what?  Than an idea that a leftist has cooked up and projected onto Republicans, without Republicans having ever indicated that they have any interest in it?

Here's a thought.  Maybe you should excoriate Republicans for things they're actually doing, rather than for things that leftists imagine that they "ought to want to do", based on what leftists assume they think.


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?    T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say 'fetus'?
> 
> 
> 
> *fetus (n.)*
> late 14c., *"the young* while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of *young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,*"
> fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged. You were talking about defining "life." Did you? No!  Where do the scholars talk about proof of "life" with the fetus? Lol! They don't, and neither have you. Try again with the fetus definition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has the right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?
Click to expand...


Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And race has what to with it?
Click to expand...


Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?


----------



## PoliticalChic

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?    T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say 'fetus'?
> 
> 
> 
> *fetus (n.)*
> late 14c., *"the young* while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of *young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,*"
> fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionarynition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has then right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> e
> 
> 
> Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.
> 
> I don't mind embarrassing you.
Click to expand...




BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?    T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say 'fetus'?
> 
> 
> 
> *fetus (n.)*
> late 14c., *"the young* while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of *young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,*"
> fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary. You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged. You were talking about defining "life." Did you? No!  Where do the scholars talk about proof of "life" with the fetus? Lol! They don't, and neither have you. Try again with the fetus definition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has the right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.
Click to expand...


"You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged."


Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.

I don't mind embarrassing you.



My alma mater has the best fight song in the nation.


----------



## BWK

Ghost of a Rider said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
Click to expand...

And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet. So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.


----------



## beagle9

SAYIT said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 week old "entity" preparing to join the world:
Click to expand...

Killing human beings is murder. Plain and simple.


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?    T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say 'fetus'?
> 
> 
> 
> *fetus (n.)*
> late 14c., *"the young* while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of *young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,*"
> fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionarynition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has then right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> e
> 
> 
> Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.
> 
> I don't mind embarrassing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?    T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say 'fetus'?
> 
> 
> 
> *fetus (n.)*
> late 14c., *"the young* while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of *young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,*"
> fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary. You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged. You were talking about defining "life." Did you? No!  Where do the scholars talk about proof of "life" with the fetus? Lol! They don't, and neither have you. Try again with the fetus definition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has the right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged."
> 
> 
> Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.
> 
> I don't mind embarrassing you.
> 
> 
> 
> My alma mater has the best fight song in the nation.
Click to expand...

Too bad you never took maximum advantage of the education afforded  to you. Because you failed miserably in defending your views. 

And by the way, between my link and my argument, your resume just got flushed down the toilet.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would know better than what?
Click to expand...

You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 week old "entity" preparing to join the world:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing human beings is murder. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Yea, as long as they are fully developed human beings. Do you have proof that the fetus is?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was? Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?    T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say 'fetus'?
> 
> 
> 
> *fetus (n.)*
> late 14c., *"the young* while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of *young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,*"
> fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionarynition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has then right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> e
> 
> 
> Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.
> 
> I don't mind embarrassing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was? Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?    T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say 'fetus'?
> 
> 
> 
> *fetus (n.)*
> late 14c., *"the young* while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of *young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,*"
> fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary. You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged. You were talking about defining "life." Did you? No!  Where do the scholars talk about proof of "life" with the fetus? Lol! They don't, and neither have you. Try again with the fetus definition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has the right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged."
> 
> 
> Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.
> 
> I don't mind embarrassing you.
> 
> 
> 
> My alma mater has the best fight song in the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you never took maximum advantage of the education afforded  to you. Because you failed miserably in defending your views.
> 
> And by the way, between my link and my argument, your resume just got flushed down the toilet.
Click to expand...


No it didn't. You only think so and to be frank your track record is awful.

You spew left loon gibberish


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and yet, the republicans seem to have learned nothing from it~!
Click to expand...


Well, other than the basic facts which seem to elude YOU.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"BIRTH *is the beginning of life. "
> 
> Another dunce who failed high school biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed* when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
> 
> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. *This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.*”
> 
> "After fertilization has taken place *a new human being has come into being*...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. *Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.*" - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out Democrats are the party of death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
Click to expand...


The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.  

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.


----------



## Dana7360

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
Click to expand...



Wow another far right wing extremist who doesn't know how to amend the constitution. Have you ever read that document? If you had then you wouldn't have tried to blame that amendment on democrats.

The congress can pass all the amendments and the president can sign them all they want. They are no more amendments to the constitution than wallpaper.

For your information the constitution clearly states that at least three quarters of the states need to pass it before it can become an amendment.

So are you saying that all of those three quarters of states were all democratic controlled?

Plus up until around the middle of the 20th century, democrats were the conservatives. It was in the 60s that when things flipped. It was the civll rights and voting rights laws that did it. nixon took advantage of it with his southern strategy and all of the south turned republican red. Most have remained conservative republican red since, 

I will also point out that in 1933 it was repealed. That amendment was only in place for 14 years.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dana7360 said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow another far right wing extremist who doesn't know how to amend the constitution. Have you ever read that document? If you had then you wouldn't have tried to blame that amendment on democrats.
> 
> The congress can pass all the amendments and the president can sign them all they want. They are no more amendments to the constitution than wallpaper.
> 
> For your information the constitution clearly states that at least three quarters of the states need to pass it before it can become an amendment.
> 
> So are you saying that all of those three quarters of states were all democratic controlled?
> 
> Plus up until around the middle of the 20th century, democrats were the conservatives. It was in the 60s that when things flipped. It was the civll rights and voting rights laws that did it. nixon took advantage of it with his southern strategy and all of the south turned republican red. Most have remained conservative republican red since,
> 
> I will also point out that in 1933 it was repealed. That amendment was only in place for 14 years.
Click to expand...


Good grief


----------



## LilOlLady

PoliticalChic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?    T*here is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say 'fetus'?
> 
> 
> 
> *fetus (n.)*
> late 14c., *"the young* while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of *young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,*"
> fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.
Click to expand...

Every living thing has a beginning. A seed produces a plant, a plant produces a vegetable or fruit, etc The beginning of a baby is a sperm and an egg, then an embryo, a fetus and then a baby but it is life in it's beginning state. Only humans that did not originate from an egg and sperm were Adam and Eve. Life begins when the seed sprouts and life begins when an egg is fertilized at conception. There are different stages of life. Human life does not begin with a fetus and turns into a baby at birth. A fetus is part of the process of life.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is a person who depends on a machine really alive? In most states you can take such a person off of a machine and allow them to die. Is that murder? Is a fetus that depends on a woman's body really a person? The fact is we should be using persuasion to reduce the number of abortions. The number of abortions have dropped in this country even with no  strict abortion laws.
Click to expand...


It depends on the machine, and the medical condition of the person.  A fetus, however, is not a grievously injured person in a coma.  He is simply small, fragile, developing, and - this is important - designed by nature to live in the environment of a womb.  Lack of strength does not make you "not a person" or "not alive".  Lack of size does not.  And, as I've said before, location does not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SweetSue92 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have very different opinions. I don't equate the loss of a fetus or an embryo with a child. My wife miscarried during her first pregnancy. Later she gave birth to our first son. There is no comparison. An embryo or fetus is not a child. If you really care about children, work to improve infant mortality, providing better healthcare for children and better education, and a better family life.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a child in utero then? A cheese grater? A banana? A billiards nine ball?
> 
> If you really care about children don't kill them. And if you do, make sure it's as early as possible
> before that child develops it's central nervous system and brain stem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no child before birth.  It is first an embryo, then a fetus, then a child after birth. Saying abortion is killing a child is like saying scrambling eggs is killing chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You leftists are poster children for the cliche "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  You learn to mouth medical terms like "embryo" and "fetus", but you're too pig-stupid and agenda-driven to bother learning what they mean, so you just ASSume that because they're different words, they mean different things.
> 
> In actual fact, "embryo" and "fetus" are terms denoting STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, not completely different objects.
> 
> And don't even get me started on the level of biological ignorance necessary to try to draw analogies between utterly different life forms which don't even belong to the same taxonomical KINGDOM.  I'd be embarrassed to bring up birds in a discussion of mammals, personally; but then, I have an actual education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they could think better, they wouldn't be Leftists.
Click to expand...


Good point.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
Click to expand...


As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would know better than what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".  

These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."


----------



## Dana7360

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."
> 
> 
> Life - Wikipedia
Click to expand...



The bible does say when life begins. It's right there in the book of genesis.

That's when the first breath of life is taken through the nose.

Not while it's in gestation but after it's born and takes it's first breath of air through the nose.

The so called christians use the bible to say life starts at conception but they are lying. The bible most certainly doesn't say that at all.

They use the Bible to excuse their radical extremist views on abortion but if they had actually read that book they would find that their god gives them instructions on how to perform an abortion in the book of numbers.

So it's all nothing but a very sick and twisted lie by far right wing radical extremists.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
Click to expand...

It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.

For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".

I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.


----------



## Fang

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


George Carlin. LOL That is perhaps the worst talking point yet. Conservatives are for personal responsibility, not asking someone else to flip the bill for your actions.


----------



## satrebil

Dana7360 said:


> The bible does say when life begins. It's right there in the book of genesis.
> 
> That's when the first breath of life is taken through the nose.
> 
> Not while it's in gestation but after it's born and takes it's first breath of air through the nose.
> 
> The so called christians use the bible to say life starts at conception but they are lying. The bible most certainly doesn't say that at all.



Complete and utter bullshit. You are referencing the creation of Adam, the FIRST human being ever to exist - who was also a full grown man. Would you also claim that life does not begin until a human being reaches adulthood?

I love it when you morons attempt to tell us Christians what our Bible _really _says. 

Try this passage on for size:

*Jeremiah 1:5* - _Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations._


----------



## SAYIT

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to the redefined definitions of words, like, "abortion" is "murder", and so many other redefinitions that can be found in the novel, "Animal Farm", like, "everyone is created equal" means that, "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others", then, authoritarian Big Brother (from "1984") becomes our dictatorial leader. As much as he may think that is true, it is not, and we are not sheep of the RW.
Click to expand...

When we play semantics to justify the taking of human life we have lost our way. Nothing teaches our children - the ones we allow to be born - the value of life like abortion.


----------



## satrebil

Dana7360 said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow another far right wing extremist who doesn't know how to amend the constitution. Have you ever read that document? If you had then you wouldn't have tried to blame that amendment on democrats.
> 
> The congress can pass all the amendments and the president can sign them all they want. They are no more amendments to the constitution than wallpaper.
> 
> For your information the constitution clearly states that at least three quarters of the states need to pass it before it can become an amendment.
> 
> So are you saying that all of those three quarters of states were all democratic controlled?
> 
> Plus up until around the middle of the 20th century, democrats were the conservatives. It was in the 60s that when things flipped. It was the civll rights and voting rights laws that did it. nixon took advantage of it with his southern strategy and all of the south turned republican red. Most have remained conservative republican red since,
> 
> I will also point out that in 1933 it was repealed. That amendment was only in place for 14 years.
Click to expand...


What part of "The 18th Amendment was *proposed by the* *US Senate* on December 18th, 1917" did you not understand? And where did I speak to the ratification process? Oh that's right, I didn't. But even a simpleton like you should understand that you don't craft and propose legislation that you don't support. 

And go peddle your bullshit revisionist history to someone else. That nonsense has been debunked more times than I can count. Like I said in a previous post, you leftists never own up to a goddamn thing.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dana7360 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/  We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."
> 
> 
> Life - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The bible does say when life begins. It's right there in the book of genesis.
> 
> That's when the first breath of life is taken through the nose.
> 
> Not while it's in gestation but after it's born and takes it's first breath of air through the nose.
> 
> The so called christians use the bible to say life starts at conception but they are lying. The bible most certainly doesn't say that at all.
> 
> They use the Bible to excuse their radical extremist views on abortion but if they had actually read that book they would find that their god gives them instructions on how to perform an abortion in the book of numbers.
> 
> So it's all nothing but a very sick and twisted lie by far right wing radical extremists.
Click to expand...


Better read Jeremiah 1:5 ya wanna be Biblical scholar


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
Click to expand...


So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.
> 
> For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".
> 
> I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.
Click to expand...


The problem with that is Planned Parenthoods are rare in rural red states. Usually located in inner city areas...why is that I wonder?


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
Click to expand...

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.
> 
> For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".
> 
> I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.
Click to expand...


My God, with this amount of kneejerking and meme-parroting, it's hard to even know where to start.

Prevalence of STDs Is High For Black Young Adults Regardless of Risk Behavior

The CDC aside for the moment, The Guttmacher Institute - no bastion of right-wingers, for sure - has done studies that indicate that young black people have a higher incidence of STDs than their white counterparts who had the same behavioral patterns.  Rather than kneejerking to squawk, "Racist!  You're blaming black people!", don't you think it might be to the best interests of black people to find out WHY they have a higher risk of infection in every behavioral category?  Do you think ignoring this so as not to look "racist" is doing THEM any favors?

I'm sure you want to jump right to "Well, you right-wingers closed Planned Parenthood in XYZ area, so they couldn't get diagnosis and treatment, so THAT'S why", but do consider that white people in those areas would presumably have the same loss of treatment, but they still have a lower infection rate.  Possibly there's something at work here besides politics, and it might behoove everyone to find out what.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
Click to expand...



By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
Click to expand...


So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.

A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".

One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

*Life*

Definition

_noun, plural: lives_

_noun, plural: lives_

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)

A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.

While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.

I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
Click to expand...




For Democrats, they do......they vote.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
Click to expand...

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.
> 
> For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".
> 
> I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is Planned Parenthoods are rare in rural red states. Usually located in inner city areas...why is that I wonder?
Click to expand...


The same as any business:  you go where there's the best chance of making money.


----------



## Flopper

PoliticalChic said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
Click to expand...

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
Click to expand...


Actually, you've just put your finger on the point:  "personhood" is the subject of debate because pro-aborts lost the debate on science, and they had to move the goalposts and make it about feelings and opinions.

Fetus and embryo are the correct MEDICAL terms, depending on the stage of development; but "human" is also a scientific term, and equally as appropriate, however much the ignorant unwashed masses want to project their "feelz" onto it.  They project those same "feelz" onto the words fetus and embryo, by trying to insist that they mean something other than a living human being.  It's a bad idea to let the language be redefined by the lowest rank of the intelligence scale.


----------



## buttercup

Dragonlady said:


> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Flopper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
Click to expand...




But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

*"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."


It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.


----------



## Leo123

Flopper said:


> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.



A fetus is a human developing into an infant.  Abortion precludes that development using death.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
Click to expand...


No, it's medical.  YOU want it to be a religious thing, because you want that straw man to target.  It's very notable that you want to set it out as a debate parameter, but you don't want to source it.

Try this quote on for size, and then tell me "it's religious, not medical":

_1. “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which *definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.* The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8._

(Special thanks for PoliticalChic, for saving me the time of looking it up myself.)

Your quote, on the other hand, comes straight out of an op-ed piece, right down to the part you attempted to claim as your own:  "This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one."  I don't doubt that Dr. Paulson has a vested interest in seeing things this way, since his livelihood as a "fertility specialist" would be very complicated by the notion that the embryos he treats as money-making commodities are actually human beings in their own right.  Nevertheless, what he's not telling you is that that is NOT what he was taught in medical school embryology courses.

Now we know why you didn't want to source your quote.  Thanks, Google.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
Click to expand...


"Certainly not a child" because why?  Because you don't "feel" that it is?


----------



## buttercup

Flopper said:


> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.



That is not scientific at all.  I hate to be repetitive, but I'm amazed we're still arguing this.


“...it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

*********

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

*********

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

*********

“The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

*********

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

*********

National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13

*********

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

*********

“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”

Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144

*********

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

*********

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”

*********

Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”

*********

Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

“but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”


*********

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”

*********

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

“The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

*********

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"

*********

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
​


----------



## PoliticalChic

The Nazis passes laws claiming the unborn no longer 'persons.'
The Nuremberg Race Laws


Oh.....wait......

.....that was the Democrats.





_"The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 officially excluded Jews from German citizenship and limited their rights as members of society. Also included in the Nuremberg Laws were specific definitions of who was legally considered a Jew."_
_The Nuremberg Laws | My Jewish Learning_


There's a kind of echo there.......


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you've just put your finger on the point:  "personhood" is the subject of debate because pro-aborts lost the debate on science, and they had to move the goalposts and make it about feelings and opinions.
> 
> Fetus and embryo are the correct MEDICAL terms, depending on the stage of development; but "human" is also a scientific term, and equally as appropriate, however much the ignorant unwashed masses want to project their "feelz" onto it.  They project those same "feelz" onto the words fetus and embryo, by trying to insist that they mean something other than a living human being.  It's a bad idea to let the language be redefined by the lowest rank of the intelligence scale.
Click to expand...

Oh, bullshit.  Fetus and embryo have exact scientific meanings.  You use terms such babies, humans, and human beings to convey the idea that they are lovable babies when the fact is they are just developing organisms.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less that half of the fertilized eggs ataach to the womb wall & are aborted.
> 
> SO you think God is this stupid & inefficient that the would reach down & place a soul in that zygote & then take it back in a couple of days when half are flushed out.
> 
> What happened to the "breath of life"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you know about God?
> 
> 
> How many of the unborn are you allowed to kill in addition to whatever God decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
Click to expand...


So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.


----------



## Dragonlady

PoliticalChic said:


> The Nazis passes laws claiming the unborn no longer 'persons.'
> The Nuremberg Race Laws
> 
> 
> Oh.....wait......
> 
> .....that was the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 officially excluded Jews from German citizenship and limited their rights as members of society. Also included in the Nuremberg Laws were specific definitions of who was legally considered a Jew."
> The Nuremberg Laws | My Jewish Learning_
> 
> 
> There's a kind of echo there.......



Only because your head is empty.


----------



## Dragonlady

PoliticalChic said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
Click to expand...


We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Certainly not a child" because why?  Because you don't "feel" that it is?
Click to expand...


Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis passes laws claiming the unborn no longer 'persons.'
> The Nuremberg Race Laws
> 
> 
> Oh.....wait......
> 
> .....that was the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 officially excluded Jews from German citizenship and limited their rights as members of society. Also included in the Nuremberg Laws were specific definitions of who was legally considered a Jew."
> The Nuremberg Laws | My Jewish Learning_
> 
> 
> There's a kind of echo there.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because your head is empty.
Click to expand...




You mean you object to being compared to Nazis????


How so?


Liberals endorse the majority of plans the Nazis did, both are socialists with no concern for human life.....



And this:
"...traces the use and evolution of the Holocaust analogy in the pro-life movement. Pro-life activists likened abortion to the Nazi Holocaust from the earliest days of the movement. But equating the deaths of millions of fetus to the deaths of millions of Jews ....

....the Holocaust resulted from German society’s adoption of the “new ethic,” a belief that only persons whose lives do not inconvenience others deserve to live. 

Abortion providers have not stopped with terminating pregnancies; rather, they experiment on the fetuses they abort, kill defective infants, sell fetal body parts, and euthanize the aged. Although the public is largely deceived about the nature of their acts, Americans’ indifference renders them as guilty for a holocaust as Germans were for the Jewish genocide. Thus those who perform abortions, as well as those who defend the legality of their actions, are Nazis in our midst."
https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/sectionchs/documents/beisel.pdf




You don't like being compared to Nazis???

Stop acting like them.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
Click to expand...




The other guy agree to those characteristics....both are correct.

 I'm gonna make you feel like a specimen butterfly watching as the mounting pin descends.


.... let's get you on record, fool: is the unborn *alive*???

Is it a *human being*????



Speak up!!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you've just put your finger on the point:  "personhood" is the subject of debate because pro-aborts lost the debate on science, and they had to move the goalposts and make it about feelings and opinions.
> 
> Fetus and embryo are the correct MEDICAL terms, depending on the stage of development; but "human" is also a scientific term, and equally as appropriate, however much the ignorant unwashed masses want to project their "feelz" onto it.  They project those same "feelz" onto the words fetus and embryo, by trying to insist that they mean something other than a living human being.  It's a bad idea to let the language be redefined by the lowest rank of the intelligence scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  Fetus and embryo have exact scientific meanings.  You use terms such babies, humans, and human beings to convey the idea that they are lovable babies when the fact is they are just developing organisms.
Click to expand...


They DO have exact scientific meanings.  I've already cited them for you:  "offspring at the stage of development from . . ." followed by the specific time period.  Colloquially, "offspring" are known as "babies" or "children".  Scientifically speaking (and "human" is a scientific term, whether you like it or not), the offspring of a human is another human.  Always.  Humans are not capable of producing anything else.

I use the colloquial terms for offspring to REMIND people that "fetus" and "embryo" do not denote something separate and different, but merely to denote a specific stage of development in THOSE VERY SAME THINGS.

YOU are the one trying to use language to convey an idea which is false.  You seem to think the words "baby" and "child" convey some personal approval and sanction on your part, some permission you're granting them to be real.  Don't flatter yourself.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
Click to expand...




".... a zygote is not a human being."


I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.



Watch this:


Does the zygote have DNA?

Where did the DNA come from?

When?

Does DNA prove species?




If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> 
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.
> 
> For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".
> 
> I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is Planned Parenthoods are rare in rural red states. Usually located in inner city areas...why is that I wonder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same as any business:  you go where there's the best chance of making money.
Click to expand...


For the same reason that rural services in anything suck. Insufficient population to make the capital investment profitable. 

That includes high speed WIFI, ethnic cuisine, and electricity and cell phone coverage on many areas.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.
> 
> For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".
> 
> I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is Planned Parenthoods are rare in rural red states. Usually located in inner city areas...why is that I wonder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same as any business:  you go where there's the best chance of making money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the same reason that rural services in anything suck. Insufficient population to make the capital investment profitable.
> 
> That includes high speed WIFI, ethnic cuisine, and electricity and cell phone coverage on many areas.
Click to expand...





".... a zygote is not a human being."



Did you want to retract that?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.
> 
> For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".
> 
> I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is Planned Parenthoods are rare in rural red states. Usually located in inner city areas...why is that I wonder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same as any business:  you go where there's the best chance of making money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the same reason that rural services in anything suck. Insufficient population to make the capital investment profitable.
> 
> That includes high speed WIFI, ethnic cuisine, and electricity and cell phone coverage on many areas.
Click to expand...


My mother lives rural, great hospital 17 miles away, AT&T cell service and never loses service, AT&T data hotspot 256 gigs a month for 59 bucks....this aint bumfuck Canada. Its the USA you live in borderline third world and are a bunch of sissies


----------



## Dragonlady

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
Click to expand...


You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life. 

And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:  

*THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life.
> 
> And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:
> 
> *THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
Click to expand...


We're making it our business. What's your plan other than trying to lecture us? Lol....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life.
> 
> And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:
> 
> *THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
Click to expand...





I notice you didn't repeat this:

".... a zygote is not a human being."



Well, you're still a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, but slapping you around seems efficacious......so I'll continue.



As everyone.....and now, even you, know, DNA identifies human beings.

"Although every person on our planet is built from the same blueprint, no two people are exactly the same. While we are similar enough to readily distinguish ourselves from other living creatures we also celebrate our individual uniqueness. So what is it that makes us all human, yet unique? Our DNA."
The Human Genome Project—discovering the human blueprint


Now you've been forced back to admitting that what you'd like to kill is a human being......as other Nazis did.


It became such at fertilization.




Still want to claim it is neither alive nor a human being?



No matter what Liberal judges claim about a 'right to privacy' in the Constitution, or I could claim such when buying a gun from the local Crip/Blood.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life.
> 
> And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:
> 
> *THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
Click to expand...




Quite a sophomoric attempted retreat: this is not about *having* a baby....it's about *killing* a baby.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SassyIrishLass said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life.
> 
> And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:
> 
> *THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're making it our business. What's your plan other than trying to lecture us? Lol....
Click to expand...




It became our business over three millennia ago......well before the Bible or monotheism.



Before Sinai and the Ten Commandments, there were *the rules called the Noahide Laws, based on reason *and a desire to be able to live with other people, laws against bad behavior, the idea that these injured society: bans on* murder,* theft, idolatry, sexual immorality, animal cruelty, cursing God, and the need to set up courts to punish the infractions. They are incumbent on everyone, whether one respects the Bible or not, because they are so obvious. 
The benefit of the Bible is that it tells society how to be good. 

“*Noahide Laws*, also called *Noachian Laws*, a Jewish Talmudic designation for seven biblical laws given to Adam and to Noah before the revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai and consequently binding on all mankind.” Noahide Laws | Judaism


“According to Jewish tradition, non-Jews who adhere to these laws …are said to be followers of Noahidism and regarded as righteous gentiles, who are assured of a place in _…_the world to come, the final reward of the righteous.” Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia


----------



## satrebil

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life.
> 
> And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:
> 
> *THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
Click to expand...


When you decide to kill innocents I make it my fucking business. I will speak out against you, I will donate to causes that oppose you, and I will vote for politicians who seek to obstruct you. And there is *NOTHING *you can do about it.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

satrebil said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life.
> 
> And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:
> 
> *THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you decide to kill innocents I make it my fucking business. I will speak out against you, I will donate to causes that oppose you, and I will vote for politicians who seek to obstruct you. And there is *NOTHING *you can do about it.
Click to expand...


Ditto.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
Click to expand...


What the fuck do trees have to do with anything?  Have you noticed at all that humans are not trees?  That we aren't even PLANTS?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.
> 
> For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".
> 
> I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is Planned Parenthoods are rare in rural red states. Usually located in inner city areas...why is that I wonder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same as any business:  you go where there's the best chance of making money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the same reason that rural services in anything suck. Insufficient population to make the capital investment profitable.
> 
> That includes high speed WIFI, ethnic cuisine, and electricity and cell phone coverage on many areas.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure I just said that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do trees have to do with anything?  Have you noticed at all that humans are not trees?  That we aren't even PLANTS?
Click to expand...



It appears that she is....intellectually.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life.
> 
> And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:
> 
> *THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
Click to expand...


We keep "ignoring" it because that's your fucking opinion, being stated as fact.

And THIS is why I keep saying you are not only stupid, but richly deserving of rudeness.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life.
> 
> And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:
> 
> *THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're making it our business. What's your plan other than trying to lecture us? Lol....
Click to expand...


Apparently, to keep whining that we should treat her like a decent, intelligent, respectable person even though she behaves like an amoral imbecile.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Cecilie1200 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... a zygote is not a human being."
> 
> 
> I know it's gilding the lily, but let's continue to prove what an imbecile you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> Does the zygote have DNA?
> 
> Where did the DNA come from?
> 
> When?
> 
> Does DNA prove species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd simply rather cop to being an imbecile.....don't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not only stupid but rude. DNA is not an indicator of life. DNA is the building blocks of life. They reveal human potential, not life.
> 
> And you keep ignoring the most basic of human rights:
> 
> *THE MOTHER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE  A BABY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're making it our business. What's your plan other than trying to lecture us? Lol....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, to keep whining that we should treat her like a decent, intelligent, respectable person even though she behaves like an amoral imbecile.
Click to expand...


Mock her....that's what I do


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do trees have to do with anything?  Have you noticed at all that humans are not trees?  That we aren't even PLANTS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that she is....intellectually.
Click to expand...


That's pretty insulting to the plants, which at least are useful and serve a purpose.


----------



## RealDave

PoliticalChic said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
Click to expand...

  LYING FUCK.

Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors.  Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.

No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.


----------



## satrebil

RealDave said:


> No one is just deciding to kill babies. .



Kermit Gosnell ring a bell, dickhead?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Cecilie1200 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do trees have to do with anything?  Have you noticed at all that humans are not trees?  That we aren't even PLANTS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that she is....intellectually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty insulting to the plants, which at least are useful and serve a purpose.
Click to expand...




OK....I'll be going on an apology tour in my garden.....


----------



## PoliticalChic

RealDave said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LYING FUCK.
> 
> Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors.  Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.
> 
> No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.
Click to expand...




A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.


----------



## RealDave

PoliticalChic said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LYING FUCK.
> 
> Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors.  Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.
> 
> No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.
Click to expand...

 I know to whom I am speaking.  Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.


----------



## PoliticalChic

RealDave said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LYING FUCK.
> 
> Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors.  Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.
> 
> No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know to whom I am speaking.  Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.
Click to expand...




I'm going to keep forcing the vulgarity out of you because of how you stain the other Leftists.


Bet everyone is proud of your mastery of the language you picked up in the little boy's room.


----------



## LilOlLady

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
Click to expand...


Since she had *unprotected sex*, it was an i*nvitation.* The guest arrives and then she wants to evict the invited one? Her body was never created to be her own if it had she would not have been told to *"mutliple and fill the earth"  and given a womb and a supply of eggs. And the necessary organ to engage in sex. And GOD do exist whether you believe it or not.*.


----------



## BWK

LilOlLady said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since she had *unprotected sex*, it was an i*nvitation.* The guest arrives and then she wants to evict the invited one? Her body was never created to be her own if it had she would not have been told to *"mutliple and fill the earth"  and given a womb and a supply of eggs. And the necessary organ to engage in sex. And GOD do exist whether you believe it or not.*.
Click to expand...

It was an invitation to her body which is hers that God gave her. You got a problem with that?


----------



## SAYIT

RealDave said:


> LYING FUCK. Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors.  Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival. No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.


So you are saying the 800,000 we abort every year make that decision on their own? Interesting ... typically stupid but interesting.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

PoliticalChic said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LYING FUCK.
> 
> Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors.  Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.
> 
> No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know to whom I am speaking.  Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to keep forcing the vulgarity out of you because of how you stain the other Leftists.
> 
> 
> Bet everyone is proud of your mastery of the language you picked up in the little boy's room.
Click to expand...


Put him on ignore. Nobody takes the loon serious anyway. Hate filled and incapable of being civil


----------



## Flopper

PoliticalChic said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
Click to expand...

Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.  However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species. 

Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.


----------



## Flopper

LilOlLady said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since she had *unprotected sex*, it was an i*nvitation.* The guest arrives and then she wants to evict the invited one? Her body was never created to be her own if it had she would not have been told to *"mutliple and fill the earth"  and given a womb and a supply of eggs. And the necessary organ to engage in sex. And GOD do exist whether you believe it or not.*.
Click to expand...

 "her body was never created to be her own"  So if she does not own her body she is a slave.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.  However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.
Click to expand...

Correct.

And that an embryo/fetus might be alive doesn’t mean it’s a person entitled to Constitutional protections – which of course it’s not.

The mistake those hostile to privacy rights make is to venture out of the realm of religion and personal, subjective opinion and enter into the realm of the law when seeking to ‘ban’ abortion and criminalize the procedure, one having nothing to do with the other.


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> The radical religious Right in this country have lost their collective minds. I read this OP and these folks think they are God. Who in the f... do you people think you are to tell others it's not their body? Are you out of your friggin mind? What a disgusting bunch of nuts. Have you read the Constitution? Get out of here with your lunatic talk.
Click to expand...

Nice rant, but you are the one who has lost your mind. The lunatic talk is the justification of killing human beings forming in the womb or have formed in the womb. The lunatic action is using abortion to kill something because a woman decides she had sex but regretted it, and then decides to abort because of her wrecklace actions in life. 

People want to talk about "when does life start", but I ask when does very important individual responsibility start ???


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.
Click to expand...


If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.



> So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.



I certainly hope so.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
Click to expand...


Since life can’t begin at any point _without _conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.


----------



## buttercup

Dragonlady said:


> a zygote is not a human being.



Ya know, I'm just going to keep posting this, because you guys are akin to a 3 year old holding her fingers in her ears going "la la la la la."


“...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

*********

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

*********

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

*********

“The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

*********

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

*********

National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13

*********

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

*********

“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”

Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144

*********

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

*********

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”

*********

Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”

*********

Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

“but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”


*********

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”

*********

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

“The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

*********

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"

*********

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”​


----------



## The Purge

A reminder...


----------



## Leo123

Flopper said:


> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. * However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.



That in red.....A human fetus is alive and developing......a human corpse is dead and has no life.   A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living.   A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and.....will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA.   Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?


----------



## buttercup




----------



## buttercup




----------



## SweetSue92

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> The radical religious Right in this country have lost their collective minds. I read this OP and these folks think they are God. Who in the f... do you people think you are to tell others it's not their body? Are you out of your friggin mind? What a disgusting bunch of nuts. Have you read the Constitution? Get out of here with your lunatic talk.
Click to expand...




BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> The radical religious Right in this country have lost their collective minds. I read this OP and these folks think they are God. Who in the f... do you people think you are to tell others it's not their body? Are you out of your friggin mind? What a disgusting bunch of nuts. Have you read the Constitution? Get out of here with your lunatic talk.
Click to expand...


When you have no substance, you rant and insult.


----------



## SweetSue92

deanrd said:


> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?



No substance, personal attacks.

That's how we know you're losing the debate.


----------



## SweetSue92

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion.  There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property".  Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".
> 
> Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter.  God gave women free will on abortion.  You would take away what God gave us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
Click to expand...


And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans. 

You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.


----------



## SweetSue92

Leo123 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. * However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That in red.....A human fetus is alive and developing......a human corpse is dead and has no life.   A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living.   A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and.....will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA.   Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?
Click to expand...


Obfuscating the really simple stuff is their MO. My youngest students would laugh at the stupid stuff they say, and that's the truth. When you can't even fool young children you should crawl away in shame, knowing you have lost. 

But Leftists have no shame.


----------



## Leo123

SweetSue92 said:


> Obfuscating the really simple stuff is their MO. My youngest students would laugh at the stupid stuff they say, and that's the truth. When you can't even fool young children you should crawl away in shame, knowing you have lost.
> 
> But Leftists have no shame.



Yeah, a callous disregard for life....I mean trying to equate a corpse with a fetus......They are certifiably loons.  Life is meaningless to them.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

deanrd said:


> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?



Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who _Republicans _are going to attack next?


----------



## RealDave

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since life can’t begin at any point _without _conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.
Click to expand...


Great logic.  Not

Conception can not take place without a sperm.  Therefore, according to you., life begins at sperm production & every time we do not ensure every sperm gets to be part of conception, we are aborting babies.


----------



## RealDave

Ghost of a Rider said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who _Republicans _are going to attack next?
Click to expand...

 What children have the Democrats killed?


----------



## RealDave

buttercup said:


>



Bullshit.  A fetus becomes an infant at birth.  Nothing to do with age.


----------



## RealDave

Leo123 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. * However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That in red.....A human fetus is alive and developing......a human corpse is dead and has no life.   A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living.   A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and.....will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA.   Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?
Click to expand...


Is a cancerous tumor alive?  Is my foot alive?


----------



## RealDave

The Purge said:


> A reminder...



So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.


----------



## gipper

RealDave said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.
Click to expand...

Abortion is legalized murder. Plain and simple.

Murdering your unborn child for convenience sake, is psychotic.

Remember BO playing to the baby killers with...” i don’t want to penalize them with a baby.”  Ugh!  Grandpa wants his grandchild murdered. Now that is pathological.


----------



## The Purge

RealDave said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.
Click to expand...

Yes cocksucker they do you ignorant slut

7 states already allow abortion up to birth — not just New York | The ...
Jan 30, 2019 · New York isn't the only state that allows abortion up to birth. ... at least one clinic in Washington, D.C. offers abortions up to 36 weeks


----------



## Dragonlady

SweetSue92 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
Click to expand...


It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.

If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.

*IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *


----------



## LilOlLady

busybee01 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A* fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? * Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in l*ife-sustaining oxygen *and* nutrient* early in development and is a *LIVING BEING.* After 5-6 weeks of *pregnancy*, the u*mbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen *directly to the developing *fetus's* body.
> For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, *all the materials and energy for building a baby* are supplied by *secretions from glands in the uterus lining*. Life begins at conception. The *embryo protection law* in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other *law* explicitly provides a similar *definition* of the appearance of early human *life*.
> 
> The *fifth-grade textbook* stated *"Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. *This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin *growing*, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing the fetus is alive.
> 
> An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
> There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is a person who depends on a machine really alive? In most states, you can take such a person off of a machine and allow them to die. Is that murder? Is a fetus that depends on a woman's body really a person? The fact is we should be using persuasion to reduce the number of abortions. The number of abortions has dropped in this country even with no  strict abortion laws.
Click to expand...

A woman's body is a machine. During the outbreak of Polio in the 50 many children lived in a machine until they were able to breathe on their own but they were still a human being The Iron Lung and Other Equipment. No device is more associated with polio than the tank respirator, better known as the iron lung. Physicians who treated people in the acute, early stage of polio saw that many patients were unable to breathe when the virus's action paralyzed muscle groups in the chest. A woman body is a temporary heart-lung machine for the unborn who is not able to breathe on it's on. That is the way GOD created women. A person with COPD drags an oxygen tank with them in order to live. They continue to live because of that machine. A woman is* life support* for HER unborn child and only GOD has the right to terminate life. Science cannot change that unless by a freak of nature she is born without a womb and ovaries with eggs that are potential human beings. And she cannot produce without the sperm of a male. GOD make women for men. He called her a companion. And life goes on.


----------



## SweetSue92

Dragonlady said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
> 
> If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.
> 
> *IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
Click to expand...


*It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights*

You realize you're typing word salad here right? What does "not yet living, are alive" mean? Is this how logic works in your brain? 

_*Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.*_

Yes dear, here's how it works, at least here in the USA: The right to life is primary. So a citizen doesn't get to KILL SOMEONE because they were in their way in line, or cut them off in traffic. Nowhere in law do you get to KILL SOMEONE because "rights"--because the right to life, again, is primary. If you are defending YOUR life, that's another story. But  not just for "convenience".


----------



## The Purge




----------



## SweetSue92

Dragonlady said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
> 
> If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.
> 
> *IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
Click to expand...


As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

THINK, woman, for pity's sake


----------



## SassyIrishLass

SweetSue92 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
> 
> If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.
> 
> *IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> THINK, woman, for pity's sake
Click to expand...


This thread has some of the most ridiculous reasons and arguments for baby murder I've ever read.

Leftists truly are evil ignorant morons


----------



## dblack

Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

dblack said:


> Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?



Dumb


----------



## dblack

SassyIrishLass said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb
Click to expand...


You forgot evil!


----------



## SweetSue92

Now that I think of it, I really love Dragonlady's Stupid Abortion Talking Point of the day she thinks is so clever. It is this in all caps and bolded:

*IF IT'S NOT YOUR BABY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
*
What's funny about that is everything else IS their business. Imagine if we took that leftist Stupid Talking Point and applied it elsewhere:

*IF IT'S NOT YOUR GUN PURCHASE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

IF IT'S NOT YOUR GAY WEDDING CAKE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

IF I WANT 50 PLASTIC STRAWS A DAY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
*
OH that's right--EVERYTHING is Leftists' business EXCEPT the dead babies. They don't care about the dead babies, but they sure as heck will micromanage all the straws you use. 

Because dead squid in the ocean.


----------



## Dragonlady

SweetSue92 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
> 
> If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.
> 
> *IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights*
> 
> You realize you're typing word salad here right? What does "not yet living, are alive" mean? Is this how logic works in your brain?
> 
> _*Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.*_
> 
> Yes dear, here's how it works, at least here in the USA: The right to life is primary. So a citizen doesn't get to KILL SOMEONE because they were in their way in line, or cut them off in traffic. Nowhere in law do you get to KILL SOMEONE because "rights"--because the right to life, again, is primary. If you are defending YOUR life, that's another story. But  not just for "convenience".
Click to expand...


No it’s not. The rights of parents to denytreatment to their children based


SweetSue92 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
> 
> If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.
> 
> *IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> THINK, woman, for pity's sake
Click to expand...


You're an idiot without the good sense God gave a goose.

Since you persist in believing that a woman's rights to self-determination ends the moment an egg is fertilized, there is no point in discussing this with you.  You think abortion is wrong and that you have the right to force YOUR belief on the rest of us.  Women have died throughout history for the right to make that choice and if abortion is outlawed in the USA, women will continue to die because of it.

The decision to have a baby isn't something that should happen by happenstance.  The results are to important to the life 
you're planning on bringing into the world.  

The only women affected by such a law are poor women.  Rich women will just go to a jurisdictiono where abortion is legal.  Poor women cannot.


----------



## dblack

SweetSue92 said:


> Now that I think of it, I really love Dragonlady's Stupid Abortion Talking Point of the day she thinks is so clever. It is this in all caps and bolded:
> 
> *IF IT'S NOT YOUR BABY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> *
> What's funny about that is everything else IS their business. Imagine if we took that leftist Stupid Talking Point and applied it elsewhere:
> 
> *IF IT'S NOT YOUR GUN PURCHASE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> 
> IF IT'S NOT YOUR GAY WEDDING CAKE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> 
> IF I WANT 50 PLASTIC STRAWS A DAY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> *
> OH that's right--EVERYTHING is Leftists' business EXCEPT the dead babies. They don't care about the dead babies, but they sure as heck will micromanage all the straws you use.
> 
> Because dead squid in the ocean.



Right. That's where the hypocrisy starts to get pretty rank. You're making all the same "It's for the children!!!!" arguments that the left does when they want to claim power over people.

I guess "it's different when we do it".


----------



## SassyIrishLass

SweetSue92 said:


> Now that I think of it, I really love Dragonlady's Stupid Abortion Talking Point of the day she thinks is so clever. It is this in all caps and bolded:
> 
> *IF IT'S NOT YOUR BABY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> *
> What's funny about that is everything else IS their business. Imagine if we took that leftist Stupid Talking Point and applied it elsewhere:
> 
> *IF IT'S NOT YOUR GUN PURCHASE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> 
> IF IT'S NOT YOUR GAY WEDDING CAKE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> 
> IF I WANT 50 PLASTIC STRAWS A DAY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> *
> OH that's right--EVERYTHING is Leftists' business EXCEPT the dead babies. They don't care about the dead babies, but they sure as heck will micromanage all the straws you use.
> 
> Because dead squid in the ocean.



Now ya done it...she's totally flummoxed


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since life can’t begin at any point _without _conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.
Click to expand...

Again, not at issue.

At issue is the wrongheaded notion that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which as a fact of law it does not; an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, where the protected liberty of the woman is paramount.

Religious dogma or subjective personal belief might hold that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which is perfectly appropriate, where the right to privacy ensures that each citizen is at liberty to practice and express his beliefs.

But religious dogma or subjective personal belief neither justifies violating a woman’s right to privacy nor justifies the state compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.  

A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide whether to have a child or not, not the state.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since life can’t begin at any point _without _conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, not at issue.
> 
> At issue is the wrongheaded notion that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which as a fact of law it does not; an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, where the protected liberty of the woman is paramount.
> 
> Religious dogma or subjective personal belief might hold that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which is perfectly appropriate, where the right to privacy ensures that each citizen is at liberty to practice and express his beliefs.
> 
> But religious dogma or subjective personal belief neither justifies violating a woman’s right to privacy nor justifies the state compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide whether to have a child or not, not the state.
Click to expand...


Loon


----------



## PoliticalChic

SassyIrishLass said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> LYING FUCK.
> 
> Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors.  Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.
> 
> No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know to whom I am speaking.  Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to keep forcing the vulgarity out of you because of how you stain the other Leftists.
> 
> 
> Bet everyone is proud of your mastery of the language you picked up in the little boy's room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put him on ignore. Nobody takes the loon serious anyway. Hate filled and incapable of being civil
Click to expand...



Actually, I never put anyone on ignore.

He is such an embarrassment to the other side, we should encourage him to post.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Flopper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive.  What message board are YOU reading?!  Do you want a damned list?!
> 
> "An entity"?  Really?  You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"?  'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.
> 
> Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws.  Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed.  Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not:  the same difference between a slave and a free man.  Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?
> 
> There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though.  It is merely the difference between young and old.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.  However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.
Click to expand...




One of the folks on your side said it isn't either alive nor human.


Keep your friends close.....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

PoliticalChic said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> LYING FUCK.
> 
> Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors.  Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.
> 
> No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know to whom I am speaking.  Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to keep forcing the vulgarity out of you because of how you stain the other Leftists.
> 
> 
> Bet everyone is proud of your mastery of the language you picked up in the little boy's room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put him on ignore. Nobody takes the loon serious anyway. Hate filled and incapable of being civil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I never put anyone on ignore.
> 
> He is such an embarrassment to the other side, we should encourage him to post.
Click to expand...


He's like our neighbor's yapping little poodle...Gawd that mutt annoys me


----------



## PoliticalChic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong.  The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person.  At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.
> 
> I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations.  Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
> 
> 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
> 
> 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
> 
> 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
> 
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> Those rights include life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.
> 
> Have an opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child.  A fetus is certainly not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.  However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And that an embryo/fetus might be alive doesn’t mean it’s a person entitled to Constitutional protections – which of course it’s not.
> 
> The mistake those hostile to privacy rights make is to venture out of the realm of religion and personal, subjective opinion and enter into the realm of the law when seeking to ‘ban’ abortion and criminalize the procedure, one having nothing to do with the other.
Click to expand...




"...doesn’t mean it’s a person entitled to Constitutional protections...."


It means you can kill it??????



If you were an American, you'd understand this:

. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness**.”* Thomas Jefferson.

And based on the above,* every conservative, every real American, is pro-life.* 



 For Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, the central idea goes back to the early 20th century:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about *the sanctity of human life."* Leon Trotsky


----------



## PoliticalChic

RealDave said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who _Republicans _are going to attack next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What children have the Democrats killed?
Click to expand...





*TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
59,115,995*

Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]

http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?


This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The firearm regulatory measures advocated for by the left are perfectly Constitutional; the right’s desire to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law is not.

The Supreme Court has never held that measures such as magazine capacity restrictions, AWBs, or background checks are un-Constitutional; the state has the authority to enact those regulations.

The Supreme Court has held, however, that ‘banning’ abortion is un-Constitutional, that the state has no authority to violate a woman’s reproductive autonomy.

Indeed, the left very much appreciates gun rights consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s conservatives who fail to appreciate the right to privacy, advocating for more government and more interference by the state into citizens’ private lives.


----------



## SAYIT

Flopper said:


> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.


I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
​


Leo123 said:


> That in red... A human fetus is alive and developing... a human corpse is dead and has no life. A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living. A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA. Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?


Evidently yes because there is no bottom, no ridiculousness to which anti-lifers won't stoop (perhaps even believe) to justify their ideological adherence to what may be the 21st Century's most inhumane religion … Leftardism.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't. A false comparison fallacy requires an actual comparison. You, on the other hand, fail as a pompous phony, who really doesn't know jack-shit about rhetoric or logical fallacies.


----------



## dblack

SAYIT said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
Click to expand...


Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.


----------



## SAYIT

dblack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to be the true "chickenshit fuckers," Chickenshit.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> The radical religious Right in this country have lost their collective minds. I read this OP and these folks think they are God. Who in the f... do you people think you are to tell others it's not their body? Are you out of your friggin mind? What a disgusting bunch of nuts. Have you read the Constitution? Get out of here with your lunatic talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice rant, but you are the one who has lost your mind. The lunatic talk is the justification of killing human beings forming in the womb or have formed in the womb. The lunatic action is using abortion to kill something because a woman decides she had sex but regretted it, and then decides to abort because of her wrecklace actions in life.
> 
> People want to talk about "when does life start", but I ask when does very important individual responsibility start ???
Click to expand...

I love these Toads and how they put it all off on the woman, as if she got pregnant on her own. 

And then look at the contradictions on top of it. "People want to talk about when does life start", meaning you don't know, then tries to remind us that the "woman decides to kill something", when you are admitting you don't even know when life starts. And the poster wants to talk about my "lunatic talk"?  If your contradictions aren't lunacy, I don't know what is.  People, these are the kind of retarded arguments we are dealing with with these Religious Right-wing nuts. They really can't get their stories straight. Lol! Pathetic!


----------



## BWK

SAYIT said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to the true chickenshit fuckers, Chickenshit.
> 
> I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

Right wingers have no idea when life begins, but yet,  it's slaughtering babies. You people are a trip with your lies and ignorance.


----------



## BWK

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since life can’t begin at any point _without _conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.
Click to expand...

Did God tell you that? Because if God didn't, you are lying, while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.


----------



## SAYIT

BWK said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to the true chickenshit fuckers, Chickenshit.
> 
> I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers have no idea when life begins, but yet,  it's slaughtering babies. You people are a trip with your lies and ignorance.
Click to expand...

And right on cue a bitter leftard steps up to explain that he does indeed lack the cojones to speak for those whose voices are too small to be heard.

Thank you.


----------



## BWK

dblack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
Click to expand...

"BELIEFS"! That is the argument the Right only has. And they want to push their religion and philosophy on you. The Constitution says no.


----------



## dblack

SAYIT said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to the true chickenshit fuckers, Chickenshit.
> 
> I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...


Yes it is. And what you're asking for requires that pregnant women become state property. I don't accept that approach. You need to find a better way to combat abortion.


----------



## BWK

SAYIT said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to the true chickenshit fuckers, Chickenshit.
> 
> I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers have no idea when life begins, but yet,  it's slaughtering babies. You people are a trip with your lies and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And right on cue a bitter leftard steps up to explain that he does indeed lack the cojones to speak for those whose voices are too small to be heard.
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...

   Let's try this again, since your previous response cowardly said nothing. *   Right wingers have no idea when life begins, but yet,  it's slaughtering babies. You people are a trip with your lies and ignorance.  *You have no evidence of when life begins, so how is it killing? If you cannot come up with an intelligent answer, then we know with 100% accuracy that you were lying, and we can end this ridiculously retarded argument by the Right. I'm waiting.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.



Lol. Wow.  It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be willfully ignorant is truly sad and pathetic. 


“...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

*********

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

*********

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

*********

“The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

*********

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

*********

National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13

*********

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

*********

“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”

Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144

*********

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

*********

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”

*********

Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”

*********

Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

“but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”


*********

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”

*********

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

“The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

*********

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"

*********

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "BELIEFS"! That is the argument the Right only has. And they want to push their religion and philosophy on you. The Constitution says no.
Click to expand...

Denying science again eh ???


----------



## BWK

dblack said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to the true chickenshit fuckers, Chickenshit.
> 
> I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is. And what you're asking for requires that pregnant women become state property. I don't accept that approach. You need to find a better way to combat abortion.
Click to expand...

These people remind me of the fictional program "Hands maid Tales."    Except this crowd really wants this. And that's not fiction.  They not only want ethnic cleansing, they want to totally control the women population so they become  subservient to Right wing fanaticism as sex slaves, and to have the power, and control over them. These are some sick fucks.


----------



## dannyboys

Whether you are laying in a warm swimming pool or in a woman's womb if your heart is beating and someone kills you it's murder!
If a drunk driver hits a car and kills a pregnant woman the charge is double homicide in ALL of BONOBO's 57 states!


----------



## SAYIT

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "BELIEFS"! That is the argument the Right only has. And they want to push their religion and philosophy on you. The Constitution says no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denying science again eh ???
Click to expand...

What he and all anti-lifers deny is life itself.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Wow.  It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be willfully ignorant is truly sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> “...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> *********
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
Click to expand...

Why you keep posting what has already been debunked is anyone's guess? Maybe your own fanaticism would be my best guess. But scientists cannot establish when life begins, and there simply is not anything you can do to change that. To do so is to play God. God would be the only entity that could answer that. You lost this argument from the beginning;     ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/

ttps://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/

We understand this is a major struggle for those who philosophically think they can answer that question, but they cannot.


----------



## BWK

SAYIT said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "BELIEFS"! That is the argument the Right only has. And they want to push their religion and philosophy on you. The Constitution says no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denying science again eh ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he and all anti-lifers deny is life itself.
Click to expand...

Really? When did you prove life began again? Lol! Boss, you're a joke not to us,but to yourself. You can't answer and you can't prove it. Get over yourself. It's embarrassing.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "BELIEFS"! That is the argument the Right only has. And they want to push their religion and philosophy on you. The Constitution says no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denying science again eh ???
Click to expand...

You never have anything to debate. Scram!


----------



## BWK

SAYIT said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "BELIEFS"! That is the argument the Right only has. And they want to push their religion and philosophy on you. The Constitution says no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denying science again eh ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he and all anti-lifers deny is life itself.
Click to expand...

Are you running from my question on post #1086? Let's do this thing. Provide the proof or you are a liar. You said it iis slaughtering babies, and yet you acknowledge by your own words that you cannot prove when life begins. So how do you square your own bs? If you do not give us an answer, then we know you are as nothing more than a liar and a bull shitter.


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.
> 
> 
> How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?
> 
> 
> . So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the position of the Democrat Party:
> 
> "...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”
> 
> *"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*,..."
> 
> 
> It's called _infanticide. _That's the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> LYING FUCK.
> 
> Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors.  Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.
> 
> No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know to whom I am speaking.  Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to keep forcing the vulgarity out of you because of how you stain the other Leftists.
> 
> 
> Bet everyone is proud of your mastery of the language you picked up in the little boy's room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put him on ignore. Nobody takes the loon serious anyway. Hate filled and incapable of being civil
Click to expand...




SAYIT said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> ​
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That in red... A human fetus is alive and developing... a human corpse is dead and has no life. A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living. A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA. Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidently yes because there is no bottom, no ridiculousness to which anti-lifers won't stoop (perhaps even believe) to justify their ideological adherence to what may be the 21st Century's most inhumane religion … Leftardism.
Click to expand...

So, it's a religious problem you all have. Got it. Too bad the Constitution has the last say. You people are looking for some Hands maids to control because of your religious fanaticism;


----------



## BWK

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Wow.  It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be willfully ignorant is truly sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> “...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> *********
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you keep posting what has already been debunked is anyone's guess? Maybe your own fanaticism would be my best guess. But scientists cannot establish when life begins, and there simply is not anything you can do to change that. To do so is to play God. God would be the only entity that could answer that. You lost this argument from the beginning;     ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
> 
> ttps://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/
> 
> We understand this is a major struggle for those who philosophically think they can answer that question, but they cannot.
Click to expand...

Don't post funny face emoji's  like a coward. Face the reality of the truth I reveal, or debate my point. Don't post stupid nonsense to justify hiding from my argument.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Wow.  It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be willfully ignorant is truly sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> “...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> *********
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you keep posting what has already been debunked is anyone's guess? Maybe your own fanaticism would be my best guess. But scientists cannot establish when life begins, and there simply is not anything you can do to change that. To do so is to play God. God would be the only entity that could answer that. You lost this argument from the beginning;     ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
> 
> ttps://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/
> 
> We understand this is a major struggle for those who philosophically think they can answer that question, but they cannot.
Click to expand...


You’re hilarious. You put forth a silly article from a politically motivated writer as proof and disregard decades of clear statements from  Biology, Embryology and medical textbooks.

Sorry you’re late to the game on this one, but science is very clear on when human life begins.  It’s not even debatable, from a scientific standpoint.  Do you think you know more than the scientist who first succeeded at in vitro fertilization? Do you think you know more than Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the cofounder of NARAL  and former abortionist who presided over 75,000 abortions?   Again, basic biology. You can claim that *personhood* is not determined, but when human life begins is not debatable.  Not unless you want to look like an ignorant fool.


----------



## Flash




----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> ...*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always has been and always will be everyone’s business regardless of what you want it to be. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the reality.
Click to expand...


Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.

You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?

Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> ...*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always has been and always will be everyone’s business regardless of what you want it to be. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...




Untrue.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> ...*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always has been and always will be everyone’s business regardless of what you want it to be. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
Click to expand...



Oh so tough. Women’s studies class impressive. What a charming lady.


----------



## dblack

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> ...*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always has been and always will be everyone’s business regardless of what you want it to be. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue.
Click to expand...


According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.


----------



## Unkotare

dblack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> ...*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always has been and always will be everyone’s business regardless of what you want it to be. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
Click to expand...



I wouldn’t go that far.


----------



## dblack

Unkotare said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t go that far.
Click to expand...


If you're supporting government regulation of reproduction, you pretty much are.


----------



## dannyboys

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Wow.  It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be willfully ignorant is truly sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> “...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> *********
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you keep posting what has already been debunked is anyone's guess? Maybe your own fanaticism would be my best guess. But scientists cannot establish when life begins, and there simply is not anything you can do to change that. To do so is to play God. God would be the only entity that could answer that. You lost this argument from the beginning;     ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
> 
> ttps://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/
> 
> We understand this is a major struggle for those who philosophically think they can answer that question, but they cannot.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering why you are habitually on the wrong side of sentient thinking.
Now you are ranting about God and Life. I get it now............you don't actually have a 'life'.
Now off you go! That garbage in the AW parking lot isn't going to pick itself up!!!!!!!!


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.



Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.

Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.

I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant? 

But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud. 

You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> ...*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always has been and always will be everyone’s business regardless of what you want it to be. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so tough. Women’s studies class impressive. What a charming lady.
Click to expand...


Charming? ROFL. Yeah, because I care about being 'charming'. LMAO!

Oh dear, I'll have to take a quick hysterical laughing break for a looooong minute!

PS. You could do with some women's studies yourself if you think being charming is important........still lmao!


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Wow.  It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be willfully ignorant is truly sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> “...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> *********
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you keep posting what has already been debunked is anyone's guess? Maybe your own fanaticism would be my best guess. But scientists cannot establish when life begins, and there simply is not anything you can do to change that. To do so is to play God. God would be the only entity that could answer that. You lost this argument from the beginning;     ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
> 
> ttps://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/
> 
> We understand this is a major struggle for those who philosophically think they can answer that question, but they cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re hilarious. You put forth a silly article from a politically motivated writer as proof and disregard decades of clear statements from  Biology, Embryology and medical textbooks.
> 
> Sorry you’re late to the game on this one, but science is very clear on when human life begins.  It’s not even debatable, from a scientific standpoint.  Do you think you know more than the scientist who first succeeded at in vitro fertilization? Do you think you know more than Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the cofounder of NARAL  and former abortionist who presided over 75,000 abortions?   Again, basic biology. You can claim that *personhood* is not determined, but when human life begins is not debatable.  Not unless you want to look like an ignorant fool.
Click to expand...

If I were late to the game it was because God beat me to the punch. No human being on this planet can answer "when life begins" nor will they ever. Humans can only use theories, philosophy, and or religion to answer that question for themselves. The publications you keep providing are all based on theory. No scientist can answer the question of "when life begins."You are putting them above God, by using science to answer that question. Only a fool would do such a thing. You're are the one who is hilarious, because you have reality staring right at you, and you foolishly won't look back at it.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
Click to expand...

They want "hands maids" and the power and control that come with it. Sound crazy? Yea, I agree. But never underestimate the power of a cult and it's evil teachings;


----------



## dannyboys

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
Click to expand...

All life on this planet has evolved by reproducing itself in some manner.
Female humans who kill their own unborn are 'of the devil'.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
Click to expand...


Sock....no doubt


----------



## BWK

dannyboys said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Wow.  It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be willfully ignorant is truly sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> “...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> *********
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you keep posting what has already been debunked is anyone's guess? Maybe your own fanaticism would be my best guess. But scientists cannot establish when life begins, and there simply is not anything you can do to change that. To do so is to play God. God would be the only entity that could answer that. You lost this argument from the beginning;     ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
> 
> ttps://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/
> 
> We understand this is a major struggle for those who philosophically think they can answer that question, but they cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been wondering why you are habitually on the wrong side of sentient thinking.
> Now you are ranting about God and Life. I get it now............you don't actually have a 'life'.
> Now off you go! That garbage in the AW parking lot isn't going to pick itself up!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

That's why we have you. You make no intellectual or informative contribution here, so the garbage is you sitting out back. I'll take it out in a minute.


----------



## NotYourBody

dannyboys said:


> All life on this planet has evolved by reproducing itself in some manner.
> Female humans who kill their own unborn are 'of the devil'.



Okay.


----------



## dannyboys

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Wow.  It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be willfully ignorant is truly sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> “...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> *********
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you keep posting what has already been debunked is anyone's guess? Maybe your own fanaticism would be my best guess. But scientists cannot establish when life begins, and there simply is not anything you can do to change that. To do so is to play God. God would be the only entity that could answer that. You lost this argument from the beginning;     ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
> 
> ttps://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/
> 
> We understand this is a major struggle for those who philosophically think they can answer that question, but they cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re hilarious. You put forth a silly article from a politically motivated writer as proof and disregard decades of clear statements from  Biology, Embryology and medical textbooks.
> 
> Sorry you’re late to the game on this one, but science is very clear on when human life begins.  It’s not even debatable, from a scientific standpoint.  Do you think you know more than the scientist who first succeeded at in vitro fertilization? Do you think you know more than Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the cofounder of NARAL  and former abortionist who presided over 75,000 abortions?   Again, basic biology. You can claim that *personhood* is not determined, but when human life begins is not debatable.  Not unless you want to look like an ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were late to the game it was because God beat me to the punch. No human being on this planet can answer "when life begins" nor will they ever. Humans can only use theories, philosophy, and or religion to answer that question for themselves. The publications you keep providing are all based on theory. No scientist can answer the question of "when life begins."You are putting them above God, by using science to answer that question. Only a fool would do such a thing. You're are the one who is hilarious, because you have reality staring right at you, and you foolishly won't look back at it.
Click to expand...

Apparently you believe there is a God.
Do you really believe that God is 'KOOL' with women, whom he created, killing a life inside their body b/c "I just can't deal with 'it' right now!!!!!!".
Looks to me that you are having some serious 'guilt' issues surrounding the 'abortion thing'.


----------



## BWK

dannyboys said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All life on this planet has evolved by reproducing itself in some manner.
> Female humans who kill their own unborn are 'of the devil'.
Click to expand...

Life on this planet has evolved through adaptation to perpetuate it's own kind in the face of changing environmental conditions. Not because of life itself. Where did you come up with that ignorant ass shit?


----------



## BWK

dannyboys said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Wow.  It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be willfully ignorant is truly sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> “...it is scientifically correct to say that *human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> *********
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and* a new life will have begun*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being begins with fertilization,* a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the *beginning of a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you keep posting what has already been debunked is anyone's guess? Maybe your own fanaticism would be my best guess. But scientists cannot establish when life begins, and there simply is not anything you can do to change that. To do so is to play God. God would be the only entity that could answer that. You lost this argument from the beginning;     ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
> 
> ttps://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/
> 
> We understand this is a major struggle for those who philosophically think they can answer that question, but they cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re hilarious. You put forth a silly article from a politically motivated writer as proof and disregard decades of clear statements from  Biology, Embryology and medical textbooks.
> 
> Sorry you’re late to the game on this one, but science is very clear on when human life begins.  It’s not even debatable, from a scientific standpoint.  Do you think you know more than the scientist who first succeeded at in vitro fertilization? Do you think you know more than Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the cofounder of NARAL  and former abortionist who presided over 75,000 abortions?   Again, basic biology. You can claim that *personhood* is not determined, but when human life begins is not debatable.  Not unless you want to look like an ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were late to the game it was because God beat me to the punch. No human being on this planet can answer "when life begins" nor will they ever. Humans can only use theories, philosophy, and or religion to answer that question for themselves. The publications you keep providing are all based on theory. No scientist can answer the question of "when life begins."You are putting them above God, by using science to answer that question. Only a fool would do such a thing. You're are the one who is hilarious, because you have reality staring right at you, and you foolishly won't look back at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you believe there is a God.
> Do you really believe that God is 'KOOL' with women, whom he created, killing a life inside their body b/c "I just can't deal with 'it' right now!!!!!!".
> Looks to me that you are having some serious 'guilt' issues surrounding the 'abortion thing'.
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask God, since God is probably the only entity that can answer when life begins? I have no guilt at all, because I'm not part of the Right wing echo chamber who insist they know when life begins. I'm not the one lying to myself. You are.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> ...*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always has been and always will be everyone’s business regardless of what you want it to be. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
Click to expand...

You mean that someone being the left until that government rules against them... Ohh the horrors, ohhhh the horrors.


----------



## Dragonlady

BWK said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want "hands maids" and the power and control that come with it. Sound crazy? Yea, I agree. But never underestimate the power of a cult and it's evil teachings;
Click to expand...


When Margaret Atwood first published The Handmaid's Tale, I thought that such a fanciful scenario would never happen in the United States.  Now, her tale of an authoritarian theocracy is all to frighteningly real.  Given that fully 80% of the population supports abortion to some extent or another, and less than 20% supports an outright ban, this is truly the attempt of an angry bitter minority of misogynistic right wing radicals, to impose their religious and "moral" beliefs on an unwilling and unbelieving population.

*IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.  THAT'S THE TRUE MEANING OF "PRO-CHOICE".  When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, you can choose to carry the child to term.  Fully 75% of American women make that choice.  But the other 25%, chose "Not NOW", and their reasons for that choice are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.


*


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sock....no doubt
Click to expand...


Reality bothers you. I realize that. It's why folks like you try SO HARD to change reality. It's the Old (Wo)man Yelling at Cloud Syndrome.

I'm not bothered by your sock comment and honestly have no idea what it means. But if the sock makes you feel more secure in your false reality, you should definitely grab whatever comfort you can find.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sock....no doubt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality bothers you. I realize that. It's why folks like you try SO HARD to change reality. It's the Old (Wo)man Yelling at Cloud Syndrome.
> 
> I'm not bothered by your sock comment and honestly have no idea what it means. But if the sock makes you feel more secure in your false reality, you should definitely grab whatever comfort you can find.
Click to expand...


You're a sock account. Screen name and the thread you barged in on is a dead give away.

Off to ignore ya go, sock puppet


----------



## SAYIT

BWK said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "BELIEFS"! That is the argument the Right only has. And they want to push their religion and philosophy on you. The Constitution says no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denying science again eh ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he and all anti-lifers deny is life itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you running from my question on post #1086? Let's do this thing. Provide the proof or you are a liar. You said it iis slaughtering babies, and yet you acknowledge by your own words that you cannot prove when life begins. So how do you square your own bs? If you do not give us an answer, then we know you are as nothing more than a liar and a bull shitter.
Click to expand...

Are you really so stupid as to believe the life which grows in a woman's womb is not alive, and so pompous & delusional as to believe others are somehow required to prove it to you? You clearly cannot see anything beyond your ideological leftarded silliness and just as obviously are far more interested in defending women's "right" to slaughter & flush babies than you are in protecting & defending those babies.

That is your choice but tell yourself what you will,  it does not alter or mitigate the FACT that y'all are slaughtering babies.


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sock....no doubt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality bothers you. I realize that. It's why folks like you try SO HARD to change reality. It's the Old (Wo)man Yelling at Cloud Syndrome.
> 
> I'm not bothered by your sock comment and honestly have no idea what it means. But if the sock makes you feel more secure in your false reality, you should definitely grab whatever comfort you can find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a sock account. Screen name and the thread you barged in on is a dead give away.
> 
> Off to ignore ya go, sock puppet
Click to expand...


Clearly I am new here, lol. I'm still trying to figure out how this forum works. Here is my response - 

Oh I see. You can't argue my reality, so you dismiss me as irrelevant. It's why you'll never win this abortion battle. You aren't in control. Fact.


----------



## beagle9

Dragonlady said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want "hands maids" and the power and control that come with it. Sound crazy? Yea, I agree. But never underestimate the power of a cult and it's evil teachings;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Margaret Atwood first published The Handmaid's Tale, I thought that such a fanciful scenario would never happen in the United States.  Now, her tale of an authoritarian theocracy is all to frighteningly real.  Given that fully 80% of the population supports abortion to some extent or another, and less than 20% supports an outright ban, this is truly the attempt of an angry bitter minority of misogynistic right wing radicals, to impose their religious and "moral" beliefs on an unwilling and unbelieving population.
> 
> *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.  THAT'S THE TRUE MEANING OF "PRO-CHOICE".  When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, you can choose to carry the child to term.  Fully 75% of American women make that choice.  But the other 25%, chose "Not NOW", and their reasons for that choice are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> *
Click to expand...

It's not like you are at a food taste contest where you either decide something taste bad or good, so it's into the trash with the bad. We are talking human beings here. Also you can just spit that bad food into the trash all by yourself, where as an abortion has to be done by proffesionals and staff in which involves them in something that eventually misuses their medical certification's in life, and worse endangers their souls to boot.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want "hands maids" and the power and control that come with it. Sound crazy? Yea, I agree. But never underestimate the power of a cult and it's evil teachings;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Margaret Atwood first published The Handmaid's Tale, I thought that such a fanciful scenario would never happen in the United States.  Now, her tale of an authoritarian theocracy is all to frighteningly real.  Given that fully 80% of the population supports abortion to some extent or another, and less than 20% supports an outright ban, this is truly the attempt of an angry bitter minority of misogynistic right wing radicals, to impose their religious and "moral" beliefs on an unwilling and unbelieving population.
> 
> *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.  THAT'S THE TRUE MEANING OF "PRO-CHOICE".  When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, you can choose to carry the child to term.  Fully 75% of American women make that choice.  But the other 25%, chose "Not NOW", and their reasons for that choice are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not like you are at a food taste contest where you either decide something taste bad or good, so it's into the trash with the bad. We are talking human beings here. Also you can just spit that bad food into the trash all by yourself, where as an abortion has to be done by proffesionals and staff in which involves them in something that eventually misuses their medical certification's in life, and worse endangers their souls to boot.
Click to expand...

 When abortion is made illegal, desperate women of less opportunity and means use the coat hangar method. That doesn't require another person.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want "hands maids" and the power and control that come with it. Sound crazy? Yea, I agree. But never underestimate the power of a cult and it's evil teachings;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Margaret Atwood first published The Handmaid's Tale, I thought that such a fanciful scenario would never happen in the United States.  Now, her tale of an authoritarian theocracy is all to frighteningly real.  Given that fully 80% of the population supports abortion to some extent or another, and less than 20% supports an outright ban, this is truly the attempt of an angry bitter minority of misogynistic right wing radicals, to impose their religious and "moral" beliefs on an unwilling and unbelieving population.
> 
> *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.  THAT'S THE TRUE MEANING OF "PRO-CHOICE".  When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, you can choose to carry the child to term.  Fully 75% of American women make that choice.  But the other 25%, chose "Not NOW", and their reasons for that choice are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not like you are at a food taste contest where you either decide something taste bad or good, so it's into the trash with the bad. We are talking human beings here. Also you can just spit that bad food into the trash all by yourself, where as an abortion has to be done by proffesionals and staff in which involves them in something that eventually misuses their medical certification's in life, and worse endangers their souls to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When abortion is made illegal, desperate women of less opportunity and means use the coat hangar method. That doesn't require another person.
Click to expand...

True, but if they use such a method, and survive, then they should immediately be taken to prison right after their attempt to murder their unborn baby. That's why we enact or what we have laws for. To deter people from doing horrendous things to themselves or to others. 

It best to seek help for their mental break down in life, and they should always seek life and not death for themselves and their unborn babies.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Dragonlady said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want "hands maids" and the power and control that come with it. Sound crazy? Yea, I agree. But never underestimate the power of a cult and it's evil teachings;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Margaret Atwood first published The Handmaid's Tale, I thought that such a fanciful scenario would never happen in the United States.  Now, her tale of an authoritarian theocracy is all to frighteningly real.  Given that fully 80% of the population supports abortion to some extent or another, and less than 20% supports an outright ban, this is truly the attempt of an angry bitter minority of misogynistic right wing radicals, to impose their religious and "moral" beliefs on an unwilling and unbelieving population.
> 
> *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.  THAT'S THE TRUE MEANING OF "PRO-CHOICE".  When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, you can choose to carry the child to term.  Fully 75% of American women make that choice.  But the other 25%, chose "Not NOW", and their reasons for that choice are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> *
Click to expand...


That's like saying if you don't believe in gassing Jews don't partake in it.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> When abortion is made illegal, desperate women of less opportunity and means use the coat hangar method. That doesn't require another person.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but if they use such a method, and survive, then they should immediately be taken to prison right after their attempt to murder their unborn baby. That's why we enact or what we have laws for. To deter people from doing horrendous things to themselves or to others.
> 
> It best to seek help for their mental break down in life, and they should always seek life and not death for themselves and their unborn babies.
Click to expand...


If only you could control her every action, there would be no abortion. If you want to jail all women for having an abortion, go for it. Convince the rest of the country. Make the laws. 

You'll still have all the pro-choice women who are faced with unwanted pregnancy having abortions if that's what they choose. So all you really did was put women in jail. Winning.

I care about my (and other pro-choice women's) body. I don't care about any man-made law that says you can control my body or a body growing inside my body. NO. NEVER. EVER.

You all are insane.


----------



## dannyboys

Dragonlady said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want "hands maids" and the power and control that come with it. Sound crazy? Yea, I agree. But never underestimate the power of a cult and it's evil teachings;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Margaret Atwood first published The Handmaid's Tale, I thought that such a fanciful scenario would never happen in the United States.  Now, her tale of an authoritarian theocracy is all to frighteningly real.  Given that fully 80% of the population supports abortion to some extent or another, and less than 20% supports an outright ban, this is truly the attempt of an angry bitter minority of misogynistic right wing radicals, to impose their religious and "moral" beliefs on an unwilling and unbelieving population.
> 
> *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.  THAT'S THE TRUE MEANING OF "PRO-CHOICE".  When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, you can choose to carry the child to term.  Fully 75% of American women make that choice.  But the other 25%, chose "Not NOW", and their reasons for that choice are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> *
Click to expand...

Actually there is a silver lining.
The more fucking LIBs kill their babies the better.
I mean who really wants tens of thousands of LIB 'government teat-suckers'?


----------



## BWK

SAYIT said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> 
> 
> "BELIEFS"! That is the argument the Right only has. And they want to push their religion and philosophy on you. The Constitution says no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denying science again eh ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he and all anti-lifers deny is life itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you running from my question on post #1086? Let's do this thing. Provide the proof or you are a liar. You said it iis slaughtering babies, and yet you acknowledge by your own words that you cannot prove when life begins. So how do you square your own bs? If you do not give us an answer, then we know you are as nothing more than a liar and a bull shitter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you really so stupid as to believe the life which grows in a woman's womb is not alive, and so pompous & delusional as to believe others are somehow required to prove it to you? You clearly cannot see anything beyond your ideological leftarded silliness and just as obviously are far more interested in defending women's "right" to slaughter & flush babies than you are in protecting & defending that babies.
> 
> That is your choice but tell yourself what you will,  it does not alter or mitigate the FACT that y'all are slaughtering babies.
Click to expand...

I don't live in a world of fantasy while relying on my own lies to get me through each day. You've proven your failures by not proving when life begins. Talk to God next time, then get back to us.


----------



## Unkotare

dblack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t go that far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're supporting government regulation of reproduction, you pretty much are.
Click to expand...




Not even close.


----------



## dannyboys

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sock....no doubt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality bothers you. I realize that. It's why folks like you try SO HARD to change reality. It's the Old (Wo)man Yelling at Cloud Syndrome.
> 
> I'm not bothered by your sock comment and honestly have no idea what it means. But if the sock makes you feel more secure in your false reality, you should definitely grab whatever comfort you can find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a sock account. Screen name and the thread you barged in on is a dead give away.
> 
> Off to ignore ya go, sock puppet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly I am new here, lol. I'm still trying to figure out how this forum works. Here is my response -
> 
> Oh I see. You can't argue my reality, so you dismiss me as irrelevant. It's why you'll never win this abortion battle. You aren't in control. Fact.
Click to expand...

Permanent Ignore asshole!


----------



## BWK

dannyboys said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want "hands maids" and the power and control that come with it. Sound crazy? Yea, I agree. But never underestimate the power of a cult and it's evil teachings;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Margaret Atwood first published The Handmaid's Tale, I thought that such a fanciful scenario would never happen in the United States.  Now, her tale of an authoritarian theocracy is all to frighteningly real.  Given that fully 80% of the population supports abortion to some extent or another, and less than 20% supports an outright ban, this is truly the attempt of an angry bitter minority of misogynistic right wing radicals, to impose their religious and "moral" beliefs on an unwilling and unbelieving population.
> 
> *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.  THAT'S THE TRUE MEANING OF "PRO-CHOICE".  When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, you can choose to carry the child to term.  Fully 75% of American women make that choice.  But the other 25%, chose "Not NOW", and their reasons for that choice are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there is a silver lining.
> The more fucking LIBs kill their babies the better.
> I mean who really wants tens of thousands of LIB 'government teat-suckers'?
Click to expand...

There you go. You solved your own problem with lying, then lying about something else. Lol! These Toads are a trip.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> ...
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. ....




You already do. You always have. You want it that way, you need it that way.


----------



## NotYourBody

dannyboys said:


> Actually there is a silver lining.
> The more fucking LIBs kill their babies the better.
> I mean who really wants tens of thousands of LIB 'government teat-suckers'?



Winner winner chicken dinner! Really, use whatever justification you like, I'm fine with that! Just stay out of my body and what is inside of it and we are GOOD, friend.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already do. You always have. You want it that way, you need it that way.
Click to expand...

Another winner! Wow, so much Winning! today. I love it! 

And who said conservatives can't accept reality?


----------



## BWK

dannyboys said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sock....no doubt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality bothers you. I realize that. It's why folks like you try SO HARD to change reality. It's the Old (Wo)man Yelling at Cloud Syndrome.
> 
> I'm not bothered by your sock comment and honestly have no idea what it means. But if the sock makes you feel more secure in your false reality, you should definitely grab whatever comfort you can find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a sock account. Screen name and the thread you barged in on is a dead give away.
> 
> Off to ignore ya go, sock puppet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly I am new here, lol. I'm still trying to figure out how this forum works. Here is my response -
> 
> Oh I see. You can't argue my reality, so you dismiss me as irrelevant. It's why you'll never win this abortion battle. You aren't in control. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Permanent Ignore asshole!
Click to expand...

Trump's pussy grabbers are pussies who are too weak to debate, so they go run and hide with the ignore button, because someone kicked their asses over the truth. Boo hoo!


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion *WILL NEVER BE ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE MOTHER'S*.
> 
> ...*!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always has been and always will be everyone’s business regardless of what you want it to be. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so tough. Women’s studies class impressive. What a charming lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charming? ROFL. Yeah, because I care about being 'charming'. LMAO!
> 
> ...o!
Click to expand...




Clearly you don’t. Of course, pretending to be proud that you are unpleasant and unattractive doesn’t really make that pang inside go away. But that’s for you and your shrink to work out.


----------



## NotYourBody

dannyboys said:


> Oh I see. You can't argue my reality, so you dismiss me as irrelevant. It's why you'll never win this abortion battle. You aren't in control. Fact.


Permanent Ignore asshole![/QUOTE]

More Winning! Anymore takers? It helps if you don't get quite so triggered.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already do. You always have. You want it that way, you need it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another winner! Wow, so much Winning! today. I love it!
> 
> And who said conservatives can't accept reality?
Click to expand...




Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.

There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> Clearly you don’t. Of course, pretending to be proud that you are unpleasant and unattractive doesn’t really make that pang inside go away. But that’s for you and your shrink to work out.



Thanks for you concern over my mental health, God bless your heart!


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.



Well then big boy, what part of the REALITY I've presented you with, do you dispute? Come on now. Try to follow a logical path and tell me how I am wrong about REALITY.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don’t. Of course, pretending to be proud that you are unpleasant and unattractive doesn’t really make that pang inside go away. But that’s for you and your shrink to work out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for you concern over my mental health, God bless your heart!
Click to expand...



I didn’t say I was concerned about it.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.



Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. Your method has already FAILED. Try again.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already do. You always have. You want it that way, you need it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another winner! Wow, so much Winning! today. I love it!
> 
> And who said conservatives can't accept reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. ....
Click to expand...




Open a newspaper (if you remember what those are).


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open a newspaper (if you remember what those are).
Click to expand...


Sure. If it makes you FEELZ better to pretend abortions are already being prevented, that's fine too.

Pro-choice women don't care about your feelz or your laws. That's the part you struggle with.

 - You have no way of knowing when a woman is pregnant.

 - A woman can abort a fetus without medical help. She can even do it by herself.

Until you can change BOTH of these two FACTS, you have no control. Suck for you I guess.


----------



## RealDave

gipper said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is legalized murder. Plain and simple.
> 
> Murdering your unborn child for convenience sake, is psychotic.
> 
> Remember BO playing to the baby killers with...” i don’t want to penalize them with a baby.”  Ugh!  Grandpa wants his grandchild murdered. Now that is pathological.
Click to expand...

  An unwanted pregnancy is like a penalty.  Here they are on their path, whether college or just starting a areer, and you would force them to carry that fetus 9 months or stop everything to raise a child.

It is you that wants to restrict access to birth control & then butch when women get pregnant.  The epitome of stupidity.


----------



## RealDave

The Purge said:


>


 And yet you assfucks back Trump's stealing children at the border.

AI guess we are supposed to accept your definition of when life begins because you assfucks know all about science, right?


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. Your method has already FAILED. Try again.
Click to expand...

True, but the law will prevent it.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t go that far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're supporting government regulation of reproduction, you pretty much are.
Click to expand...


Nobody is controlling reproduction. You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have zero babies. Reproduction is not the issue. 
*
ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED. 
*
The keyword is not reproduction, it’s KILLING. But of course you guys don’t have the cajones or honesty to say that.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. Your method has already FAILED. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the law will.
Click to expand...


Describe to me the steps the law will take to physically determine I am pregnant so they can prevent me from having an abortion?

Because I'm still stuck on the fact that the govt (and pro-lifers and.....well any other human being, animal, plant, has no way of even knowing I'm pregnant.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> The keyword is not reproduction, it’s KILLING. But of course you guys don’t have the cajones or honesty to say that.



All I have to say is NO.


----------



## SAYIT

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sock....no doubt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality bothers you. I realize that. It's why folks like you try SO HARD to change reality. It's the Old (Wo)man Yelling at Cloud Syndrome.
> 
> I'm not bothered by your sock comment and honestly have no idea what it means. But if the sock makes you feel more secure in your false reality, you should definitely grab whatever comfort you can find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a sock account. Screen name and the thread you barged in on is a dead give away.
> 
> Off to ignore ya go, sock puppet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly I am new here, lol. I'm still trying to figure out how this forum works. Here is my response -
> 
> Oh I see. You can't argue my reality, so you dismiss me as irrelevant. It's why you'll never win this abortion battle. You aren't in control. Fact.
Click to expand...

When and if you reach adulthood you may come to realize we all have some control which we exercise in the choices we make. However some really feel so powerless that they choose to slaughter defenseless babies because it gives them a sense of power.

Very sad and sooo leftarded.

Oh yeah ... and welcome rookie.


----------



## RealDave

buttercup said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t go that far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're supporting government regulation of reproduction, you pretty much are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is controlling reproduction. You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have zero babies. Reproduction is not the issue.
> *
> ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> The keyword is not reproduction, it’s KILLING. But of course you guys don’t have the cajones or honesty to say that.
Click to expand...

So why do nearly half of zygotes naturally abort.

If fertilization happens in the lab, does the technician have to care for it until birth & if he doesn't, is it murder too?


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. Your method has already FAILED. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the law will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Describe to me the steps the law will take to physically determine I am pregnant so they can prevent me from having an abortion?
> 
> Because I'm still stuck on the fact that the govt (and pro-lifers and.....well any other human being, animal, plant, has no way of even knowing I'm pregnant.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that if you determine that you are pregnant, then you will hide the fact until you figure out how to kill or abort your inconvenient problem ?? How about avoiding getting pregnant to begin with ??

Is that so hard ??


----------



## gipper

RealDave said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is legalized murder. Plain and simple.
> 
> Murdering your unborn child for convenience sake, is psychotic.
> 
> Remember BO playing to the baby killers with...” i don’t want to penalize them with a baby.”  Ugh!  Grandpa wants his grandchild murdered. Now that is pathological.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An unwanted pregnancy is like a penalty.  Here they are on their path, whether college or just starting a areer, and you would force them to carry that fetus 9 months or stop everything to raise a child.
> 
> It is you that wants to restrict access to birth control & then butch when women get pregnant.  The epitome of stupidity.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The mother can easily give the baby to adoptive parents. How heinous to kill your child, because you don’t want to carry it for nine months. 

Nothing a human being can do is easier than preventing an unwanted pregnancy. It is way past the time for personal responsibility and protecting the innocent unborn. 

Is not 60 million murdered unborn enough?


----------



## RealDave

SAYIT said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sock....no doubt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality bothers you. I realize that. It's why folks like you try SO HARD to change reality. It's the Old (Wo)man Yelling at Cloud Syndrome.
> 
> I'm not bothered by your sock comment and honestly have no idea what it means. But if the sock makes you feel more secure in your false reality, you should definitely grab whatever comfort you can find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a sock account. Screen name and the thread you barged in on is a dead give away.
> 
> Off to ignore ya go, sock puppet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly I am new here, lol. I'm still trying to figure out how this forum works. Here is my response -
> 
> Oh I see. You can't argue my reality, so you dismiss me as irrelevant. It's why you'll never win this abortion battle. You aren't in control. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When and if you reach adulthood you may come to realize we all have some control which we exercise in the choices we make. However some really feel so powerless that they choose to slaughter defenseless babies because gives them a sense of power.
> 
> Very sad and sooo leftarded.
> 
> Oh yeah ... and welcome rookie.
Click to expand...


So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.


----------



## NotYourBody

RealDave said:


> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.



I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.


----------



## buttercup

RealDave said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t go that far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're supporting government regulation of reproduction, you pretty much are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is controlling reproduction. You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have zero babies. Reproduction is not the issue.
> *
> ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> The keyword is not reproduction, it’s KILLING. But of course you guys don’t have the cajones or honesty to say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do nearly half of zygotes naturally abort.
> 
> If fertilization happens in the lab, does the technician have to care for it until birth & if he doesn't, is it murder too?
Click to expand...


What do miscarriages have to do with the price of rice in China?  A miscarriage is not the same thing as an intentional killing, so it’s illogical and absurd to try to compare the two.

As far as in vitro, obviously someone takes care of the embryo, and regardless of what the  law says, all human beings have value and should be protected, even in the earliest stages. So yes, it is technically homicide, even if you and others can’t wrap your mind around that, because you don’t see the value in human life in the early stages.


----------



## SAYIT

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> When abortion is made illegal, desperate women of less opportunity and means use the coat hangar method. That doesn't require another person.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but if they use such a method, and survive, then they should immediately be taken to prison right after their attempt to murder their unborn baby. That's why we enact or what we have laws for. To deter people from doing horrendous things to themselves or to others.
> 
> It best to seek help for their mental break down in life, and they should always seek life and not death for themselves and their unborn babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only you could control her every action, there would be no abortion. If you want to jail all women for having an abortion, go for it. Convince the rest of the country. Make the laws.
> 
> You'll still have all the pro-choice women who are faced with unwanted pregnancy having abortions if that's what they choose. So all you really did was put women in jail. Winning.
> 
> I care about my (and other pro-choice women's) body. I don't care about any man-made law that says you can control my body or a body growing inside my body. NO. NEVER. EVER.
> 
> You all are insane.
Click to expand...

You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.

BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
Click to expand...


You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> \ How about avoiding getting pregnant to begin with ??
> 
> Is that so hard ??



How about you mind your own business? Is that so hard?

Have you ever considered the fact that by the time a woman gestates ONE unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create thousands of unwanted pregnancies?

You are concentrating on the wrong thing. That's why your abortion war has already failed. You are trying to control things you cannot.

Worry about your own body. I will do the same.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
Click to expand...


And yet all those things still happen, just like abortion. 

Reminder - I don't need an argument. All I have to do is say NO to your attempted control. And I'm really not sure how you will know that I had an abortion. You gonna look for the body?


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet all those things still happen, just like abortion.
> 
> Reminder - I don't need an argument. All I have to do is say NO to your attempted control. And I'm really not sure how you will know that I had an abortion. You gonna look for the body?
Click to expand...


Indeed they do, and people are punished for them accordingly. Let us know how saying "NO" to a judge works out for you, pinhead.


----------



## NotYourBody

SAYIT said:


> You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.
> 
> BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.



Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.

My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.


----------



## SAYIT

RealDave said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t go that far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're supporting government regulation of reproduction, you pretty much are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is controlling reproduction. You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have zero babies. Reproduction is not the issue.
> *
> ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> The keyword is not reproduction, it’s KILLING. But of course you guys don’t have the cajones or honesty to say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do nearly half of zygotes naturally abort.
> 
> If fertilization happens in the lab, does the technician have to care for it until birth & if he doesn't, is it murder too?
Click to expand...

FFS, the spinning and excuses for killing babies just get loonier and loonier, proving conclusively that there just isn't a single valid argument for abortion ... just vapid, self-serving excuses and rationalizations.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.
> 
> BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
Click to expand...


"*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet all those things still happen, just like abortion.
> 
> Reminder - I don't need an argument. All I have to do is say NO to your attempted control. And I'm really not sure how you will know that I had an abortion. You gonna look for the body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they do, and people are punished for them accordingly. Let us know how saying "NO" to a judge works out for you, pinhead.
Click to expand...


And HOW exactly is the law going to know I was ever pregnant in the first place? Or that I performed an abortion on myself?

Reality. It's always better to concentrate on the things you CAN control.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.
> 
> BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
Click to expand...

If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.


----------



## SAYIT

NotYourBody said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.
> 
> BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
Click to expand...

It's no more a moral judgement than that which justifies society making murder illegal.

Yes, your body is your body and you have the right to use and/or abuse yourself as you choose but the baby that grows in your womb is not your body, NotYourBody, and you don't have a God-Given right to destroy it because you consider it to be an inconvenience.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> \ How about avoiding getting pregnant to begin with ??
> 
> Is that so hard ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you mind your own business? Is that so hard?
> 
> Have you ever considered the fact that by the time a woman gestates ONE unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create thousands of unwanted pregnancies?
> 
> You are concentrating on the wrong thing. That's why your abortion war has already failed. You are trying to control things you cannot.
> 
> Worry about your own body. I will do the same.
Click to expand...


Gosh, this thread is repetitive. But in the small chance that you actually are new here (which I highly doubt) let’s go through this again. There are *TWO* bodies involved, *TWO* lives.

The bodily autonomy talking point is one of the easiest to debunk. Because if it was actually true, it would be true throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. And no sane person, only a soulless sociopath believes it would be perfectly OK to butcher a full-term baby just minutes away from delivery, simply because he or she is still in the mother’s body.  That is no different than infanticide. Pure evil.   So unless you agree with infanticide, your argument completely collapses.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet all those things still happen, just like abortion.
> 
> Reminder - I don't need an argument. All I have to do is say NO to your attempted control. And I'm really not sure how you will know that I had an abortion. You gonna look for the body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they do, and people are punished for them accordingly. Let us know how saying "NO" to a judge works out for you, pinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And HOW exactly is the law going to know I was ever pregnant in the first place? Or that I performed an abortion on myself?
> 
> Reality. It's always better to concentrate on the things you CAN control.
Click to expand...


When you show up at a hospital with injuries you sustained in your attempt, idiot. 

Did I say or imply that every person who has an abortion would be caught? No, I did not. FFS there are murderers roaming free right all over the country at this very moment. The fact that they haven't been caught doesn't absolve them.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.
> 
> BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
Click to expand...


It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??


----------



## NotYourBody

SAYIT said:


> It no more a moral judgement than that which justifies society making murder illegal.
> 
> Yes, your body is your body and you have the right to use and/or abuse yourself as you choose but the baby that grows in your womb is not your body, NotYourBody, and you don't have a God-Given right to destroy it because you consider it to be an inconvenience.



Okay then just your (whatever you call it) judgement. I don't care. The answer is still my body, by control.


----------



## RealDave

gipper said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is legalized murder. Plain and simple.
> 
> Murdering your unborn child for convenience sake, is psychotic.
> 
> Remember BO playing to the baby killers with...” i don’t want to penalize them with a baby.”  Ugh!  Grandpa wants his grandchild murdered. Now that is pathological.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An unwanted pregnancy is like a penalty.  Here they are on their path, whether college or just starting a areer, and you would force them to carry that fetus 9 months or stop everything to raise a child.
> 
> It is you that wants to restrict access to birth control & then butch when women get pregnant.  The epitome of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The mother can easily give the baby to adoptive parents. How heinous to kill your child, because you don’t want to carry it for nine months.
> 
> Nothing a human being can do is easier than preventing an unwanted pregnancy. It is way past the time for personal responsibility and protecting the innocent unborn.
> 
> Is not 60 million murdered unborn enough?
Click to expand...

So you avoided the position on the right to limit access top birth control.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> \ How about avoiding getting pregnant to begin with ??
> 
> Is that so hard ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you mind your own business? Is that so hard?
> 
> Have you ever considered the fact that by the time a woman gestates ONE unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create thousands of unwanted pregnancies?
> 
> You are concentrating on the wrong thing. That's why your abortion war has already failed. You are trying to control things you cannot.
> 
> Worry about your own body. I will do the same.
Click to expand...

Someone convinced you or rung your arm to come in here ?? Mind your own business, and don't kill for starters. You are so adamant about controlling your own body until you fall into the sack eh ?? Then for some reason you are out of control of your own body ??


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> \ How about avoiding getting pregnant to begin with ??
> 
> Is that so hard ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you mind your own business? Is that so hard?
> 
> Have you ever considered the fact that by the time a woman gestates ONE unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create thousands of unwanted pregnancies?
> 
> You are concentrating on the wrong thing. That's why your abortion war has already failed. You are trying to control things you cannot.
> 
> Worry about your own body. I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosh, this thread is repetitive. But in the small chance that you actually are new here (which I highly doubt) let’s go through this again. There are *TWO* bodies involved, *TWO* lives.
> 
> The bodily autonomy talking point is of the easiest to debunk. Because if it was actually true, it would be true throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. And no sane person, only a soulless sociopath believes it would be perfectly OK to butcher a full-term baby just minutes away from delivery, simply because he or she is still in the mother’s body.  That is no different than infanticide. Pure evil.   So unless you agree with infanticide, your argument completely collapses.
Click to expand...


It IS incredibly repetitive. I'm not arguing. I'm stating reality.

At no time will I EVER EVER EVER allow anyone to control my body or what is inside of it. Period. End of debate.

You can throw a tantrump about that but it doesn't CHANGE anything. You don't know I'm pregnant. You can't stop me. You can TRY, it just won't ever work. I will defend myself from you I promise!

I'm not new here. I've lurked for along time. This topic got me interested enough to sign up. That's the story, not very exciting I'm afraid.


----------



## dblack

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet all those things still happen, just like abortion.
> 
> Reminder - I don't need an argument. All I have to do is say NO to your attempted control. And I'm really not sure how you will know that I had an abortion. You gonna look for the body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they do, and people are punished for them accordingly. Let us know how saying "NO" to a judge works out for you, pinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And HOW exactly is the law going to know I was ever pregnant in the first place? Or that I performed an abortion on myself?
> 
> Reality. It's always better to concentrate on the things you CAN control.
Click to expand...


That's just it. Some problems, most problems, can't be solved by passing a law. And when we try to legislate those problems anyway, it does more harm than good. We tried outlawing abortion, it didn't work. 

It didn't work with Prohibition. Alcohol abuse was, and still is, a horrible problem that destroys countless lives. The reformers were sure that their goal justified any means. We learned better. We found better ways of dealing with the problem.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.
> 
> BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
Click to expand...


It the same way reality always works. You cannot stop someone from driving drunk, but you can arrest them and punish them if you catch them.

Same thing with abortion. You'll just have to find the pregnant woman who aborted the baby and then you can put her in jail. You CANNOT stop her from aborting the baby. 

In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.
> 
> BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It the same way reality always works. You cannot stop someone from driving drunk, but you can arrest them and punish them if you catch them.
> 
> Same thing with abortion. You'll just have to find the pregnant woman who aborted the baby and then you can put her in jail. You CANNOT stop her from aborting the baby.
> 
> In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.
Click to expand...


Fine with me. Murderers deserve nothing less.


----------



## beagle9

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.
> 
> BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
Click to expand...

Exactly.... Then when someone is killed (another human being), by ones drunkenness, it still doesn't work in court by the person claiming my body, my choice.


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet all those things still happen, just like abortion.
> 
> Reminder - I don't need an argument. All I have to do is say NO to your attempted control. And I'm really not sure how you will know that I had an abortion. You gonna look for the body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they do, and people are punished for them accordingly. Let us know how saying "NO" to a judge works out for you, pinhead.
Click to expand...


Would there be regular inspections? Random? How would this enforcement mechanism work?


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> And HOW exactly is the law going to know I was ever pregnant in the first place? Or that I performed an abortion on myself?
> 
> Reality. It's always better to concentrate on the things you CAN control.



When you show up at a hospital with injuries you sustained in your attempt, idiot.

Did I say or imply that every person who has an abortion would be caught? No, I did not. FFS there are murderers roaming free right all over the country at this very moment. The fact that they haven't been caught doesn't absolve them.[/QUOTE]

I guess I better stay away from the hospital! You still haven't caught me OR stopped me. And the abortion still happened. You failed again.


----------



## Dragonlady

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already do. You always have. You want it that way, you need it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another winner! Wow, so much Winning! today. I love it!
> 
> And who said conservatives can't accept reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
Click to expand...


The prohibition against abortion is about as useful as the prohibition against suicide.  Abortion has been with us since the caveman days when the herbal healers identified plants which were aborificants and women used them.  The "witches" who were burned at the stake were midwives and herbal healers who often provided women with abortions as well as delivering their babies.  Burn them alive.  Witches all!

You fools are no different.  Seeking to control women or jail them for making their own decisions.  As always, only the poor will be forced to procreate.  The middle class white people will still be able to afford a weekend in Canada.  Only the poor will be harmed by these laws.

Same as it ever was.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> \ How about avoiding getting pregnant to begin with ??
> 
> Is that so hard ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you mind your own business? Is that so hard?
> 
> Have you ever considered the fact that by the time a woman gestates ONE unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create thousands of unwanted pregnancies?
> 
> You are concentrating on the wrong thing. That's why your abortion war has already failed. You are trying to control things you cannot.
> 
> Worry about your own body. I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosh, this thread is repetitive. But in the small chance that you actually are new here (which I highly doubt) let’s go through this again. There are *TWO* bodies involved, *TWO* lives.
> 
> The bodily autonomy talking point is of the easiest to debunk. Because if it was actually true, it would be true throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. And no sane person, only a soulless sociopath believes it would be perfectly OK to butcher a full-term baby just minutes away from delivery, simply because he or she is still in the mother’s body.  That is no different than infanticide. Pure evil.   So unless you agree with infanticide, your argument completely collapses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It IS incredibly repetitive. I'm not arguing. I'm stating reality.
> 
> At no time will I EVER EVER EVER allow anyone to control my body or what is inside of it. Period. End of debate.
> 
> You can throw a tantrump about that but it doesn't CHANGE anything. You don't know I'm pregnant. You can't stop me. You can TRY, it just won't ever work. I will defend myself from you I promise!
> 
> I'm not new here. I've lurked for along time. This topic got me interested enough to sign up. That's the story, not very exciting I'm afraid.
Click to expand...


You sound like an angry, rebellious immature child.   Zero personal responsibility, zero desire to be accountable for your own actions, just selfishness and immaturity.

You have free will but the fact remains and always will remain that you advocate murder.  Thankfully, the world IS changing. More and more people (especially with advancing  technology of ultrasounds) are realizing the truth about abortion, and imo it’s very likely that the laws will eventually reflect that.

But even if it doesn’t change, there is still a higher law and you will be held accountable for  your actions, your selfishness, your willful blindness, and all the evil things you advocate. I have zero doubt about that.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> I guess I better stay away from the hospital! You still haven't caught me OR stopped me. And the abortion still happened. You failed again.



Once again, where did I say that abortions would be 100% prevented?


----------



## Flash




----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> \ How about avoiding getting pregnant to begin with ??
> 
> Is that so hard ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you mind your own business? Is that so hard?
> 
> Have you ever considered the fact that by the time a woman gestates ONE unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create thousands of unwanted pregnancies?
> 
> You are concentrating on the wrong thing. That's why your abortion war has already failed. You are trying to control things you cannot.
> 
> Worry about your own body. I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone convinced you or rung your arm to come in here ?? Mind your own business, and don't kill for starters. You are so adamant about controlling your own body until you fall into the sack eh ?? Then for some reason you are out of control of your own body ??
Click to expand...



Is that not the same for a man? Are condoms too hard? too big? too small? the sperms slip out even when you wear one? 

Probably best for everyone to control the actions the CAN control.


----------



## dblack

Flash said:


>



All you all bitches belong to the state!


----------



## satrebil

Dragonlady said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already do. You always have. You want it that way, you need it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another winner! Wow, so much Winning! today. I love it!
> 
> And who said conservatives can't accept reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prohibition against abortion is about as useful as the prohibition against suicide.  Abortion has been with us since the caveman days when the herbal healers identified plants which were aborificants and women used them.  The "witches" who were burned at the stake were midwives and herbal healers who often provided women with abortions as well as delivering their babies.  Burn them alive.  Witches all!
> 
> You fools are no different.  Seeking to control women or jail them for making their own decisions.  As always, only the poor will be forced to procreate.  The middle class white people will still be able to afford a weekend in Canada.  Only the poor will be harmed by these laws.
> 
> Same as it ever was.
Click to expand...


It's not about control, it's about protecting the innocent. Baby killer.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no monopoly on caring, only sanctimony, but many Americans believe the baby's right to life significantly outweighs what you consider your God-Given right to snuff-out another's life because it inconveniences you. I can't begin to tell you how inhumane that rationale is and evidently you can't see anything but your own selfish wants and needs.
> 
> BTW, the baby within you is not your body, NotYourBody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It the same way reality always works. You cannot stop someone from driving drunk, but you can arrest them and punish them if you catch them.
> 
> Same thing with abortion. You'll just have to find the pregnant woman who aborted the baby and then you can put her in jail. You CANNOT stop her from aborting the baby.
> 
> In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.
Click to expand...

No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I better stay away from the hospital! You still haven't caught me OR stopped me. And the abortion still happened. You failed again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, where did I say that abortions would be 100% prevented?
Click to expand...


You won't prevent ANY abortions with pro-choice women. You just think you will.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.



Heh.. un.

At least you admit the scope of what you want to do. Does the term "social engineering" ring a bell?


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet all those things still happen, just like abortion.
> 
> Reminder - I don't need an argument. All I have to do is say NO to your attempted control. And I'm really not sure how you will know that I had an abortion. You gonna look for the body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they do, and people are punished for them accordingly. Let us know how saying "NO" to a judge works out for you, pinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And HOW exactly is the law going to know I was ever pregnant in the first place? Or that I performed an abortion on myself?
> 
> Reality. It's always better to concentrate on the things you CAN control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it. Some problems, most problems, can't be solved by passing a law. And when we try to legislate those problems anyway, it does more harm than good. We tried outlawing abortion, it didn't work.
> 
> It didn't work with Prohibition. Alcohol abuse was, and still is, a horrible problem that destroys countless lives. The reformers were sure that their goal justified any means. We learned better. We found better ways of dealing with the problem.
Click to expand...

This post sounds like "hey evil is winning", just don't fight it anymore.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I better stay away from the hospital! You still haven't caught me OR stopped me. And the abortion still happened. You failed again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, where did I say that abortions would be 100% prevented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't prevent ANY abortions with pro-choice women. You just think you will.
Click to expand...


Go ahead, ram a coathanger up your snatch. When you perforate your uterus and bleed to death from your "choice" there will be one less baby killer in the world.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.. un.
> 
> At least you admit the scope of what you want to do. Does the term "social engineering" ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Saving lives is social engineering now ??? LOL


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.



100% I support unwanted pregnancy prevention. That's where all the efforts should be concentrated. Once the unwanted pregnancy has occurred, it can't be controlled by anyone except the mother who contains it inside her body.


----------



## SAYIT

RealDave said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The mother can easily give the baby to adoptive parents. How heinous to kill your child, because you don’t want to carry it for nine months. Nothing a human being can do is easier than preventing an unwanted pregnancy...
> 
> 
> 
> So you avoided the position on the right to limit access top birth control.
Click to expand...

Typically LAME, strawman deflection. Few if any here have argued to limit access to birth control. We are talking about what you leftards consider women's God-Given right to slaughter and flush a baby's life.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And HOW exactly is the law going to know I was ever pregnant in the first place? Or that I performed an abortion on myself?
> 
> Reality. It's always better to concentrate on the things you CAN control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you show up at a hospital with injuries you sustained in your attempt, idiot.
> 
> Did I say or imply that every person who has an abortion would be caught? No, I did not. FFS there are murderers roaming free right all over the country at this very moment. The fact that they haven't been caught doesn't absolve them.
Click to expand...


I guess I better stay away from the hospital! You still haven't caught me OR stopped me. And the abortion still happened. You failed again.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking pre-meditated murder, and then hiding the fact ?


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine with me. Murderers deserve nothing less.
Click to expand...


Build those walls! You better hurry.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.. un.
> 
> At least you admit the scope of what you want to do. Does the term "social engineering" ring a bell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving lives is social engineering now ??? LOL
Click to expand...


No, taking it up as a government responsibility to indoctrinate people is.

You people keep dipping deeper and deeper into the standard tropes of fascism. I hope you wake up soon.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And HOW exactly is the law going to know I was ever pregnant in the first place? Or that I performed an abortion on myself?
> 
> Reality. It's always better to concentrate on the things you CAN control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you show up at a hospital with injuries you sustained in your attempt, idiot.
> 
> Did I say or imply that every person who has an abortion would be caught? No, I did not. FFS there are murderers roaming free right all over the country at this very moment. The fact that they haven't been caught doesn't absolve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I better stay away from the hospital! You still haven't caught me OR stopped me. And the abortion still happened. You failed again.
Click to expand...


Are you talking pre-meditated murder, and then hiding the fact ?[/QUOTE]

No, but I'm fine if you call it that. How you gonna catch me? You gonna find the body?


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> "hey evil is winning", just don't fight it anymore.



Absurd concept isn't it?


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% I support unwanted pregnancy prevention. That's where all the efforts should be concentrated. Once the unwanted pregnancy has occurred, it can't be controlled by anyone except the mother who contains it inside her body.
Click to expand...

Control and killing are two different things unless control is used wrongfully for evil purposes. Controlling what you eat, smoke, drink etc is examples of good control that will lead to a healthy outcome for you and the baby, but controlling the way that you will kill the life within you uhh is evil. What maybe controlling the way the coat hanger is held while fishing for that life inside in order to kill it ?? That is an example of evil control.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "hey evil is winning", just don't fight it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd concept isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes absurd is correct, but it depends on your definition of absurd.


----------



## buttercup

Dragonlady said:


> The prohibition against abortion is about as useful as the prohibition against suicide.  Abortion has been with us since the caveman days when the herbal healers identified plants which were aborificants and women used them.  The "witches" who were burned at the stake were midwives and herbal healers who often provided women with abortions as well as delivering their babies.  Burn them alive.  Witches all!
> 
> You fools are no different.  Seeking to control women or jail them for making their own decisions.  As always, only the poor will be forced to procreate.  The middle class white people will still be able to afford a weekend in Canada.  Only the poor will be harmed by these laws.
> 
> Same as it ever was.



That is incorrect. That's actually one of the myths put forth by your side, but it is simply untrue.

In this video, she thoroughly debunks that and 2 other myths:


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% I support unwanted pregnancy prevention. That's where all the efforts should be concentrated. Once the unwanted pregnancy has occurred, it can't be controlled by anyone except the mother who contains it inside her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Control and killing are two different things unless control is used wrongfully for evil purposes. Controlling what you eat, smoke, drink etc is examples of good control that will lead to a healthy outcome for you and the baby, but controlling the way that you will kill the life within you uhh is evil. What maybe controlling the way the coat hanger is held while fishing for that life inside in order to kill it ?? That is an example of evil control.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how any of that affects my ability to say NO to letting anyone control any living tissue inside of my body.

So I have a total and complete disagreement with any argument that allows any other person to claim a right of control over my body and what is inside of my body. We are at a log jam.

I win because I have the upper hand  - you don't know I'm pregnant. You can't stop me from aborting the pregnancy.

You just can't change those two facts, unfortunately for you.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "hey evil is winning", just don't fight it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd concept isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes absurd is correct, but it depends on your definition of absurd.
Click to expand...

I generally go by the definition I find in recognized dictionaries.


----------



## BWK

SAYIT said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse.*.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to the true chickenshit fuckers, Chickenshit.
> 
> I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers have no idea when life begins, but yet,  it's slaughtering babies. You people are a trip with your lies and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And right on cue a bitter leftard steps up to explain that he does indeed lack the cojones to speak for those whose voices are too small to be heard.
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...

When we're they hollering, and who heard them?


----------



## SAYIT

BWK said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to the true chickenshit fuckers, Chickenshit.
> 
> I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers have no idea when life begins, but yet,  it's slaughtering babies. You people are a trip with your lies and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And right on cue a bitter leftard steps up to explain that he does indeed lack the cojones to speak for those whose voices are too small to be heard.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When we're they hollering, and who heard them?
Click to expand...

Get an adult in your life to explain what "those whose voices are too small to be heard" means.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> I win because I have the upper hand  - you don't know I'm pregnant. You can't stop me from aborting the pregnancy.
> 
> You just can't change those two facts, unfortunately for you.



All I hear from you is "me me me me me!!!"    "It's all about ME!!!!"

I truly hope, for your own sake, that you grow up one day and begin to be less selfish, more responsible and grow a conscience. Most people eventually do because with years of life experience comes wisdom, but some sadly never do.


----------



## Death Angel

BWK said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to the true chickenshit fuckers, Chickenshit.
> 
> I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers have no idea when life begins, but yet,  it's slaughtering babies. You people are a trip with your lies and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And right on cue a bitter leftard steps up to explain that he does indeed lack the cojones to speak for those whose voices are too small to be heard.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When we're they hollering, and who heard them?
Click to expand...

God hears them. You will give an accounting soon enough.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would know better than what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
Click to expand...



There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I win because I have the upper hand  - you don't know I'm pregnant. You can't stop me from aborting the pregnancy.
> 
> You just can't change those two facts, unfortunately for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I hear from you is "me me me me me!!!"    "It's all about ME!!!!"
> 
> I truly hope, for your own sake, that you grow up one day and begin to be less selfish, more responsible and grow a conscience. Most people eventually do because with years of life experience comes wisdom, but some sadly never do.
Click to expand...

 
Well...yes....it is my body after all. I appreciate your concern over my life choices. I'm all good!


----------



## Vandalshandle

SAYIT said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to the redefined definitions of words, like, "abortion" is "murder", and so many other redefinitions that can be found in the novel, "Animal Farm", like, "everyone is created equal" means that, "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others", then, authoritarian Big Brother (from "1984") becomes our dictatorial leader. As much as he may think that is true, it is not, and we are not sheep of the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When we play semantics to justify the taking of human life we have lost our way. Nothing teaches our children - the ones we allow to be born - the value of life like abortion.
Click to expand...


Feel free to teach your children anything you like. I will do the same.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> Well...yes....it is my body after all. I appreciate your concern over my life choices. I'm all good!



You have 2 heads, 2 hearts, 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 different blood types and 2 unique sets of DNA? WOW!

I haven't been talking about YOUR body, Einstein, I've been talking about the innocent body you want to dismember and dispose of like garbage.

Also, you never acknowledged my post about the utter failure of the bodily autonomy talking point. It collapses when you try to apply it to the entire 9 months of pregnancy.  Do you think it would be perfectly OK to butcher a full-term precious preborn baby who is minutes away from delivery, if a mother wanted to, simply because he was still on the other side of the birth canal? Yes or no.  And don't try to weasel out of that, answer the question please.


----------



## SAYIT

Vandalshandle said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we play semantics to justify the taking of human life we have lost our way. Nothing teaches our children - the ones we allow to be born - the value of life like abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to teach your children anything you like. I will do the same.
Click to expand...

Yanno, my objection to slaughtering babies isn't religious or ideological but simply a matter of defending the defenseless. I wonder what - beyond your required adherence to leftardism - drives your kill-the-babies POV?


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The mother can easily give the baby to adoptive parents. How heinous to kill your child, because you don’t want to carry it for nine months. Nothing a human being can do is easier than preventing an unwanted pregnancy...
> 
> 
> 
> So you avoided the position on the right to limit access top birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typically LAME, strawman deflection. Few if any here have argued to limit access to birth control. We are talking about what you leftards consider women's God-Given right to slaughter and flush a baby's life.
Click to expand...

That is the only argument the baby killers have.  Lame. They know abortion is legalized murder. They know there is no justifying it with logical honest discourse.


----------



## NotYourBody

Since we cannot prevent a woman from having an abortion, maybe we should be looking for other solutions to unwanted pregnancy.

I saw an interesting argument a couple of days ago. I don't remember who made it but the gist is this - 

The technology to transfer a fetus from a mother's womb to an incubator may not be far off.

If it does become possible, and you could transfer the fetus from the woman to the incubator, and it cost $1,000,000 to bring that fetus to birth, do you think society should or would bear that cost? 

In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. 638,169 x $1,000,000 = over $638 BILLION. That's per year. Every year. In addition, you would have to provide medical care for the birth. Do you think society will accept it? How will you pay for it?

To be sure, every pro-choice woman will not agree to this, but perhaps you could save SOME of the lives you are agonized about. Where do you stand on this idea?


----------



## Vandalshandle

SAYIT said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we play semantics to justify the taking of human life we have lost our way. Nothing teaches our children - the ones we allow to be born - the value of life like abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to teach your children anything you like. I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yanno, my objection to slaughtering babies isn't religious or ideological but simply a matter of defending the defenseless. I wonder what - beyond your required adherence to leftardism - drives your kill-the-babies POV?
Click to expand...


I don't kill babies. You have me confused with Jim Jones, or somebody else.


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The mother can easily give the baby to adoptive parents. How heinous to kill your child, because you don’t want to carry it for nine months. Nothing a human being can do is easier than preventing an unwanted pregnancy...
> 
> 
> 
> So you avoided the position on the right to limit access top birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typically LAME, strawman deflection. Few if any here have argued to limit access to birth control. We are talking about what you leftards consider women's God-Given right to slaughter and flush a baby's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the only argument the baby killers have.  Lame. They know abortion is legalized murder. They know there is no justifying it with logical honest discourse.
Click to expand...

Which brings us back once again to the point of this thread ... the utter vacuous nature of the kill-the-babies POV. I've never been party to a thread that returns with such regularity. There has been not a single good argument for abortion.
Kudos to the OP.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The mother can easily give the baby to adoptive parents. How heinous to kill your child, because you don’t want to carry it for nine months. Nothing a human being can do is easier than preventing an unwanted pregnancy...
> 
> 
> 
> So you avoided the position on the right to limit access top birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typically LAME, strawman deflection. Few if any here have argued to limit access to birth control. We are talking about what you leftards consider women's God-Given right to slaughter and flush a baby's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the only argument the baby killers have.  Lame. They know abortion is legalized murder. They know there is no justifying it with logical honest discourse.
Click to expand...


"Legalized murder"?  I could not possibly support an oxymoron.


----------



## NotYourBody

gipper said:


> ... the utter vacuous nature of the kill-the-babies POV. I've never been party to a thread that returns with such regularity. There has been not a single good argument for abortion.
> Kudos to the OP.



If only you could control the nature of people, right?! 

Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we play semantics to justify the taking of human life we have lost our way. Nothing teaches our children - the ones we allow to be born - the value of life like abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to teach your children anything you like. I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yanno, my objection to slaughtering babies isn't religious or ideological but simply a matter of defending the defenseless. I wonder what - beyond your required adherence to leftardism - drives your kill-the-babies POV?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't kill babies. You have me confused with Jim Jones, or somebody else.
Click to expand...


You support it....no difference


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.



Yes, please do take your own advice and keep your hands to yourself instead of callously killing innocents, for the sake of convenience and selfishness.


----------



## The Purge

RealDave said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you assfucks back Trump's stealing children at the border.
> 
> AI guess we are supposed to accept your definition of when life begins because you assfucks know all about science, right?
Click to expand...

Lying again..
You just can't  help being a fucking scumbag lying liberal asshole!

Obama officials rushed to explain photos from 2014 that went viral showing locked-up immigrant children — and Trump's facilities look the same

And as far as life goes...scientist agree...

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception - Princeton University
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm ... "I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from ...



Charlotte Lozier Institute › a-scientific-vi...
A Scientific View of When Life Begins | Charlotte Lozier Institute
Jun 11, 2014 · Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the ... are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific ...



https://naapc.org › why-life-begins-at-co...
Why Life Begins At Conception - NAAPC
Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception ... I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of .


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It the same way reality always works. You cannot stop someone from driving drunk, but you can arrest them and punish them if you catch them.
> 
> Same thing with abortion. You'll just have to find the pregnant woman who aborted the baby and then you can put her in jail. You CANNOT stop her from aborting the baby.
> 
> In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
Click to expand...


Maybe some kind of boot camp, where young women are taught proper Christian values. What would the punishment be for refusing to go?


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please do take your own advice and keep your hands to yourself instead of callously killing innocents, for the sake of convenience and selfishness.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your permission to control my body, though it is completely unnecessary. I will continue to control my body and ALL of the tissue contained inside of my body thank you very much.


----------



## Flopper

Ghost of a Rider said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.
> 
> Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please do take your own advice and keep your hands to yourself instead of callously killing innocents, for the sake of convenience and selfishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your permission to control my body, though it is completely unnecessary. I will continue to control my body and ALL of the tissue contained inside of my body thank you very much.
Click to expand...


I have no interest in your body or what you do with *your* body, don't flatter yourself.   Oh, and I've asked you twice now to respond to my post about your failed bodily autonomy talking point.  I take it either you don't have the courage to answer, or you keep missing my posts.    I think we both know that it's not the latter.  It's post #1217 in case you don't want to search for it.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please do take your own advice and keep your hands to yourself instead of callously killing innocents, for the sake of convenience and selfishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your permission to control my body, though it is completely unnecessary. I will continue to control my body and ALL of the tissue contained inside of my body thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your body or what you do with *your* body, don't flatter yourself.   Oh, and I've asked you twice now to respond to my post about your failed bodily autonomy talking point.  I take it either you don't have the courage to answer, or you keep missing my posts.    I think we both know that it's not the latter.
Click to expand...


I don't respond to your post about my 'failed bodily autonomy talking point' because I don't need to! 

You think you can control what is INSIDE my body? Come for me friend. Go for it. THAT is the only 'talking point' that I am interested in.

NO. NEVER. NO WAY.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please do take your own advice and keep your hands to yourself instead of callously killing innocents, for the sake of convenience and selfishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your permission to control my body, though it is completely unnecessary. I will continue to control my body and ALL of the tissue contained inside of my body thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your body or what you do with *your* body, don't flatter yourself.   Oh, and I've asked you twice now to respond to my post about your failed bodily autonomy talking point.  I take it either you don't have the courage to answer, or you keep missing my posts.    I think we both know that it's not the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't respond to your post about my 'failed bodily autonomy talking point' because I don't need to!
> 
> You think you can control what is INSIDE my body? Come for me friend. Go for it. THAT is the only 'talking point' that I am interested in.
> 
> NO. NEVER. NO WAY.
Click to expand...


That's not the way debate works, kid.   If your argument for abortion is bodily autonomy (which it clearly is, since that's the only thing you talk about, over and over), then defend your position.  Sticking your fingers in your ears like a 3 year old and saying "la la la la la... me me me me me!" is not an argument or defense.

*You won't answer the question because you KNOW you can't, without looking like a complete psychopath!
*
But you know what? I'm going to keep asking you, since you keep talking about it, I won't let you forget it. 

One more time, do you think there's anything wrong with a woman who is minutes away from delivery to butcher her full-term preborn baby (who is no different than a newborn) SIMPLY because he is in her body?  Yes or no?


----------



## Flopper

Leo123 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. * However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That in red.....A human fetus is alive and developing......a human corpse is dead and has no life.   A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living.   A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and.....will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA.   Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?
Click to expand...

Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.


----------



## Geaux4it

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please do take your own advice and keep your hands to yourself instead of callously killing innocents, for the sake of convenience and selfishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your permission to control my body, though it is completely unnecessary. I will continue to control my body and ALL of the tissue contained inside of my body thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Then you must be overjoyed Obamacare was axed since that program disagreed with your above statement. Remember, they DID NOT let you control your body. Pay for a crappy plan or pay the fine

-Geaux


----------



## Leo123

Flopper said:


> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.



If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.


----------



## Borillar

jknowgood said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion isn't safe, you can die from it. Also have complications that can affect a woman for life.
Click to expand...

You can die or have complications from childbirth too.


----------



## gipper

NotYourBody said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the utter vacuous nature of the kill-the-babies POV. I've never been party to a thread that returns with such regularity. There has been not a single good argument for abortion.
> Kudos to the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could control the nature of people, right?!
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
Click to expand...

Yeah it’s just tissue. Like clipping your toenails. Nothing to be concerned about.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The mother can easily give the baby to adoptive parents. How heinous to kill your child, because you don’t want to carry it for nine months. Nothing a human being can do is easier than preventing an unwanted pregnancy...
> 
> 
> 
> So you avoided the position on the right to limit access top birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typically LAME, strawman deflection. Few if any here have argued to limit access to birth control. We are talking about what you leftards consider women's God-Given right to slaughter and flush a baby's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the only argument the baby killers have.  Lame. They know abortion is legalized murder. They know there is no justifying it with logical honest discourse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Legalized murder"?  I could not possibly support an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Me either.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> That's not the way debate works, kid.   If your argument for abortion is bodily autonomy (which it clearly is, since that's the only thing you talk about, over and over), then defend your position.  Sticking your fingers in your ears like a 3 year old and saying "la la la la la... me me me me me!" is not an argument or defense.
> 
> *You won't answer the question because you KNOW you can't, without looking like a complete psychopath!
> *
> But you know what? I'm going to keep asking you, since you keep talking about it, I won't let you forget it.
> 
> One more time, do you think there's anything wrong with a woman who is minutes away from delivery to butcher her full-term preborn baby (who is no different than a newborn) SIMPLY because he is in her body?  Yes or no?



I don't answer the question because *I DON'T CARE IF YOU THINK I'M A PSYCHOPATH!* I'm fine with that. It does not upset me in any way I promise.

You're telling me I need to defend abortion. I don't. I won't. 

You still haven't said how exactly you will stop pro-choice women from having abortions. Because you can't. 

Bottom line here, I have the control over my body and EVERYTHING INSIDE OF IT including my uterus and the fetus inside.


----------



## buttercup

Leo123 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
Click to expand...


I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.


----------



## NotYourBody

gipper said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the utter vacuous nature of the kill-the-babies POV. I've never been party to a thread that returns with such regularity. There has been not a single good argument for abortion.
> Kudos to the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could control the nature of people, right?!
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s just tissue. Like clipping your toenails. Nothing to be concerned about.
Click to expand...


You can be concerned about the tissue inside YOUR body. I will not make any attempt to stop you


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
Click to expand...


Maybe you can legislate the exorcisms and try to enforce that. It might make you feel better.

You can be as mean as you want, you won't hurt my feelz.


----------



## gipper

NotYourBody said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the utter vacuous nature of the kill-the-babies POV. I've never been party to a thread that returns with such regularity. There has been not a single good argument for abortion.
> Kudos to the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could control the nature of people, right?!
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s just tissue. Like clipping your toenails. Nothing to be concerned about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be concerned about the tissue inside YOUR body. I will not make any attempt to stop you
Click to expand...

The problem you have is lack of intelligence. Like most supporters of baby killing, you must convince yourself it isn’t a baby.


----------



## NotYourBody

gipper said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the utter vacuous nature of the kill-the-babies POV. I've never been party to a thread that returns with such regularity. There has been not a single good argument for abortion.
> Kudos to the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could control the nature of people, right?!
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s just tissue. Like clipping your toenails. Nothing to be concerned about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be concerned about the tissue inside YOUR body. I will not make any attempt to stop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem you have is lack of intelligence. Like most supporters of baby killing, you must convince yourself it isn’t a baby.
Click to expand...


You can be concerned about the BABY inside YOUR body. I will not make any attempt to stop you.

Is that better?


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way debate works, kid.   If your argument for abortion is bodily autonomy (which it clearly is, since that's the only thing you talk about, over and over), then defend your position.  Sticking your fingers in your ears like a 3 year old and saying "la la la la la... me me me me me!" is not an argument or defense.
> 
> *You won't answer the question because you KNOW you can't, without looking like a complete psychopath!
> *
> But you know what? I'm going to keep asking you, since you keep talking about it, I won't let you forget it.
> 
> One more time, do you think there's anything wrong with a woman who is minutes away from delivery to butcher her full-term preborn baby (who is no different than a newborn) SIMPLY because he is in her body?  Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't answer the question because *I DON'T CARE IF YOU THINK I'M A PSYCHOPATH!* I'm fine with that. It does not upset me in any way I promise.
> 
> You're telling me I need to defend abortion. I don't. I won't.
> 
> You still haven't said how exactly you will stop pro-choice women from having abortions. Because you can't.
> 
> Bottom line here, I have the control over my body and EVERYTHING INSIDE OF IT including my uterus and the fetus inside.
Click to expand...


That's all the more reason to answer the question! If you don't care if you look like a psychopath, then you should have no problem answering this question:  Do you think there would be anything wrong with a woman who is minutes away from delivery butchering her full-term preborn baby who is no different than a newborn, simply because he is still inside her body?  Come on! If you don't care what anyone thinks, then just answer the question.

If you don't, then you can't defend your position, not rationally or in a sincere way. All you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la la la" like a 3 year old, and stomp your feet like an angry rebellious teenager. How sad. Pathetic.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

buttercup said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
Click to expand...

…and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.


----------



## NotYourBody

NotYourBody said:


> The problem you have is lack of intelligence. Like most supporters of baby killing, you must convince yourself it isn’t a baby.



You can be concerned about the BABY inside YOUR body. I will not make any attempt to stop you. I will be concerned about the BABY inside mine.

Is that better?


----------



## buttercup

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
Click to expand...

That's not the topic of this thread.  Feel free to start a new thread, if you want to discuss that.


----------



## gipper

NotYourBody said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the utter vacuous nature of the kill-the-babies POV. I've never been party to a thread that returns with such regularity. There has been not a single good argument for abortion.
> Kudos to the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could control the nature of people, right?!
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s just tissue. Like clipping your toenails. Nothing to be concerned about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be concerned about the tissue inside YOUR body. I will not make any attempt to stop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem you have is lack of intelligence. Like most supporters of baby killing, you must convince yourself it isn’t a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be concerned about the BABY inside YOUR body. I will not make any attempt to stop you.
> 
> Is that better?
Click to expand...

No. I don’t think you are comprehending. Murder of innocents is immoral.


----------



## Leo123

NotYourBody said:


> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.



This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> That's all the more reason to answer the question! If you don't care if you look like a psychopath, then you should have no problem answering this question:  Do you think there would be anything wrong with a woman who is minutes away from delivery butchering her full-term preborn baby who is no different than a newborn, simply because he is still inside her body?  Come on! If you don't care what anyone thinks, then just answer the question.
> 
> If you don't, then you can't defend your position, not rationally or in a sincere way. All you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la la la" like a 3 year old, and stomp your feet like an angry rebellious teenager. How sad. Pathetic.



Who is tantrumping here? I'm presenting you with REALITY. It's not a position. Can you not understand that, realistically, you can't stop abortion? 

It sucks not to have control. I get it. 3-year olds have many problems with loss of control. 

I however, have NOT lost control of my body and everything inside of it. 

You seem to be the one stomping around, mad and enraged that you want to control the fetus inside my uterus, but cannot.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
Click to expand...


There is no need whatever to bring Trump into this conversation.


----------



## NotYourBody

gipper said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could control the nature of people, right?!
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it’s just tissue. Like clipping your toenails. Nothing to be concerned about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be concerned about the tissue inside YOUR body. I will not make any attempt to stop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem you have is lack of intelligence. Like most supporters of baby killing, you must convince yourself it isn’t a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be concerned about the BABY inside YOUR body. I will not make any attempt to stop you.
> 
> Is that better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I don’t think you are comprehending. Murder of innocents is immoral.
Click to expand...

/Yawn.


----------



## NotYourBody

Leo123 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
Click to expand...


It's definitely a start in the right direction. Even then, it would be best to be triple wrapped if you are concerned about any life you might be creating.


----------



## gipper

Leo123 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
Click to expand...

That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.


----------



## Leo123

gipper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.
Click to expand...


It's not 100%.   But, I am all for protection as much as possible.   Besides Bill Clinton taught us that there are lots of other ways to have sex.  Cigar, etc.  LOL


----------



## SassyIrishLass

buttercup said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
Click to expand...


It's both


----------



## NotYourBody

gipper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.
Click to expand...

And there are different holes, if you can find a willing partner.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all the more reason to answer the question! If you don't care if you look like a psychopath, then you should have no problem answering this question:  Do you think there would be anything wrong with a woman who is minutes away from delivery butchering her full-term preborn baby who is no different than a newborn, simply because he is still inside her body?  Come on! If you don't care what anyone thinks, then just answer the question.
> 
> If you don't, then you can't defend your position, not rationally or in a sincere way. All you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la la la" like a 3 year old, and stomp your feet like an angry rebellious teenager. How sad. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is tantrumping here? I'm presenting you with REALITY. It's not a position. Can you not understand that, realistically, you can't stop abortion?
> 
> It sucks not to have control. I get it. 3-year olds have many problems with loss of control.
> 
> I however, have NOT lost control of my body and everything inside of it.
> 
> You seem to be the one stomping around, mad and enraged that you want to control the fetus inside my uterus, but cannot.
Click to expand...


It's clear to me now that you don't understand how debate works.  None of those things you brought up matter right now. That's not even the topic here.  We've been debating abortion, and you have yet to provide an argument, all you have are red herrings, and immature, selfish, unthinking responses.

How old are you, 15 maybe?  That's my guess. Actually, I take that back. My 14 year old niece is FAR more mature than you.


----------



## Leo123

NotYourBody said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's definitely a start in the right direction. Even then, it would be best to be triple wrapped if you are concerned about any life you might be creating.
Click to expand...


No worries as long as no penis/vagina contact.  Do I need to tell you how many ways a woman can satisfy a man and visa versa?   You know, it may be YOUR body but you are letting sperm into it that has the expressed purpose to fertilize your eggs.  How unwise is that if both of you are not prepared?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all the more reason to answer the question! If you don't care if you look like a psychopath, then you should have no problem answering this question:  Do you think there would be anything wrong with a woman who is minutes away from delivery butchering her full-term preborn baby who is no different than a newborn, simply because he is still inside her body?  Come on! If you don't care what anyone thinks, then just answer the question.
> 
> If you don't, then you can't defend your position, not rationally or in a sincere way. All you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la la la" like a 3 year old, and stomp your feet like an angry rebellious teenager. How sad. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is tantrumping here? I'm presenting you with REALITY. It's not a position. Can you not understand that, realistically, you can't stop abortion?
> 
> It sucks not to have control. I get it. 3-year olds have many problems with loss of control.
> 
> I however, have NOT lost control of my body and everything inside of it.
> 
> You seem to be the one stomping around, mad and enraged that you want to control the fetus inside my uterus, but cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear to me now that you don't understand how debate works.  None of those things you brought up matter right now. That's not even the topic here.  We've been debating abortion, and you have yet to provide an argument, all you have are red herrings, and immature, selfish, unthinking responses.
> 
> How old are you, 15 maybe?  That's my guess. Actually, I take that back. My 14 year old niece is FAR more mature than you.
Click to expand...


I have a couple of 15 year old twins that could take her to school.


----------



## gipper

Leo123 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 100%.   But, I am all for protection as much as possible.   Besides Bill Clinton taught us that there are lots of other ways to have sex.  Cigar, etc.  LOL
Click to expand...

Yeah that the usual response. Is there anything in life 100%?  I would guess condoms are about as close to 100% as anything.


----------



## Flopper

FYI:


Leo123 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
Click to expand...

Insults


Leo123 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
Click to expand...

"A human fetus is a being because it is alive and has human DNA and....."  This is pretty deep stuff.


----------



## gipper

NotYourBody said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are different holes, if you can find a willing partner.
Click to expand...

Whatever floats your boat. Matters not to me.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> It's clear to me now that you don't understand how debate works.  None of those things you brought up matter right now. That's not even the topic here.  We've been debating abortion, and you have yet to provide an argument, all you have are red herrings, and immature, selfish, unthinking responses.
> 
> How old are you, 15 maybe?  That's my guess. Actually, I take that back. My 14 year old niece is FAR more mature than you.



I have a couple of 15 year old twins that could take her to school.[/QUOTE]

Umm....the topic is - 

*My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points *

I added my talking point. Is it the worst? Some here seem to think so. 

If you think you need the help, bring on your teenagers! Maybe they can tell me in what way I am wrong in my presentation of reality.


----------



## Leo123

Flopper said:


> "A human fetus is a being because it is alive and has human DNA and....."  This is pretty deep stuff.



Yes and a corpse is not alive.  I thought I already taught you that.   Having trouble retaining information?


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who _Republicans _are going to attack next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What children have the Democrats killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
> 59,115,995*
> 
> Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014,  with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]
> 
> http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
Click to expand...





*"New York Times Wins Pulitzer For Unparalleled Work In Publishing Blatant Lies
May 23rd, 2019*






NEW YORK, NY—_The New York Times _increased its impressive collection of Pulitzer Prizes this week after an opinion piece published by the paper was instantly awarded a Pulitzer in the category of "Blatant Lies."

The piece, titled "Pregnancy Kills, Abortion Saves Lives," was written by Dr. Warren M. Hern. It claimed that abortion, a procedure specifically designed to end the life of a human, saves lives, while pregnancy, a process specifically designed to create a life, ends humans.

While that may sound confusing, it's more clear when you realize that the _Times _was really trying to be recognized in this new Pulitzer category.

"We saw that Columbia University had created the new category for blatant lies, and we really wanted to go for it," an editor for the paper's opinion section said. "There was a lot of competition for the award, what with the _Post_ and _The New Yorker _out there. But we just went gung-ho trying to nail this sucker down."

Though Pulitzers are usually awarded annually, this lie was so impressive that Columbia said they "just had to" get it awarded right away."
New York Times Wins Pulitzer For Unparalleled Work In Publishing Blatant Lies


----------



## NotYourBody

Leo123 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's definitely a start in the right direction. Even then, it would be best to be triple wrapped if you are concerned about any life you might be creating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries as long as no penis/vagina contact.  Do I need to tell you how many ways a woman can satisfy a man and visa versa?   You know, it may be YOUR body but you are letting sperm into it that has the expressed purpose to fertilize your eggs.  How unwise is that if both of you are not prepared?
Click to expand...



EXTREMELY UNWISE. Especially since once those sperms are loosed inside a vagina, the man literally has no control over what happens next.


----------



## Leo123

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!



It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.


----------



## NotYourBody

Leo123 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
Click to expand...


Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear to me now that you don't understand how debate works.  None of those things you brought up matter right now. That's not even the topic here.  We've been debating abortion, and you have yet to provide an argument, all you have are red herrings, and immature, selfish, unthinking responses.
> 
> How old are you, 15 maybe?  That's my guess. Actually, I take that back. My 14 year old niece is FAR more mature than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a couple of 15 year old twins that could take her to school.
Click to expand...


Umm....the topic is -

*My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points *

I added my talking point. Is it the worst? Some here seem to think so.

If you think you need the help, bring on your teenagers! Maybe they can tell me in what way I am wrong in my presentation of reality.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## BWK

You aren't. Not to worry. They aren't God, although, they would have you believe they are.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> You aren't. Not to worry. They aren't God, although, they would have you believe they are.



You're not either so stop killing the babies, jackwad


----------



## edward37

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't. Not to worry. They aren't God, although, they would have you believe they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not either so stop killing the babies, jackwad
Click to expand...

What will republicans do when the condom breaks??


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't. Not to worry. They aren't God, although, they would have you believe they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not either so stop killing the babies, jackwad
Click to expand...

You see. There you go again. Pretending to be God. When were they killing someone with "life" again? And when did you decide as God, when life began?


----------



## BWK

edward37 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't. Not to worry. They aren't God, although, they would have you believe they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not either so stop killing the babies, jackwad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What will republicans do when the condom breaks??
Click to expand...

Quietly abort of course. But ha, you aren't supposed to know. Shhh!!!


----------



## NotYourBody

edward37 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't. Not to worry. They aren't God, although, they would have you believe they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not either so stop killing the babies, jackwad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What will republicans do when the condom breaks??
Click to expand...


It's possible they only have sex for procreation?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Leo123 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
Click to expand...


Well, I mentioned it to a couple of Trump supporters, and they were shocked that sex was somehow connected to pregnancy. Next, I plan on telling them that tariffs are taxes, but it is best to crawl before walking.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I mentioned it to a couple of Trump supporters, and they were shocked that sex was somehow connected to pregnancy. Next, I plan on telling them that tariffs are taxes, but it is best to crawl before walking.
Click to expand...


You're the one that tried to pin prohibition on the republicans. I'd shush if I were you


----------



## Leo123

edward37 said:


> What will republicans do when the condom breaks??



Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already do. You always have. You want it that way, you need it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another winner! Wow, so much Winning! today. I love it!
> 
> And who said conservatives can't accept reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## gipper

NotYourBody said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
Click to expand...

Wow. So enlightening. 

Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open a newspaper (if you remember what those are).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Pro-choice women don't care about your feelz or your laws. ...s.
Click to expand...




You don’t have to care, but you ARE subject to the laws of my country whether you like it or not.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open a newspaper (if you remember what those are).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Pro-choice women don't care about your feelz or your laws. ...s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have to care, but you ARE subject to the laws of my country whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...


That still does not prevent me from having an abortion. You will have to jail A LOT of women. 600,000+ per year.

And even still, you'll have to figure out that I had an abortion. So you really can't stop me whether you like it or not.


----------



## MaryL

Abortion is a medical procedure. It could be just a way of modernizing infanticide. And some of my friends that had  abortions were traumatized by it. Because they knew it meant they killed their baby, and they had to balance that out over their needs or the long term consequenses...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MaryL said:


> Abortion is a medical procedure. It could be just a way of modernizing infanticide. And some of my friends that had  abortions were traumatized by it. Because they knew it meant they killed their baby, and they had to balance that out over their needs or the long term consequenses...



Long term problems persist in some women who have their baby murdered. Wonder why?


----------



## buttercup

Leo123 said:


> Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.



Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.

And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.

I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.

But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.


----------



## Unkotare

RealDave said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is legalized murder. Plain and simple.
> 
> Murdering your unborn child for convenience sake, is psychotic.
> 
> Remember BO playing to the baby killers with...” i don’t want to penalize them with a baby.”  Ugh!  Grandpa wants his grandchild murdered. Now that is pathological.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An unwanted pregnancy is like a penalty.  Here they are on their path, whether college or just starting a areer, and you would force them to carry that fetus 9 months or stop everything to raise a child.
> 
> ......
Click to expand...




 Life is not a punishment, and it sure as hell is far far far more important than inconveniencing some irresponsible teenager’s “path” or college dreams so that she can kill somebody.


----------



## Unkotare

RealDave said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you assfucks back Trump's stealing children at the border.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...





That’s a lie.


----------



## Unkotare

RealDave said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....your definition of when life begins ...
Click to expand...





Oh, do you have your own definition?


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't. Not to worry. They aren't God, although, they would have you believe they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not either so stop killing the babies, jackwad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What will republicans do when the condom breaks??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's possible they only have sex for procreation?
Click to expand...

Please, you should have warned us you were a comedian. I would have brought my popcorn.


----------



## NotYourBody

gipper said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
Click to expand...

Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.
Click to expand...


It will be one day.  In fact, other barbaric things people consider "normal" in this age will also be stopped.   Mark my words.


----------



## NotYourBody

BWK said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't. Not to worry. They aren't God, although, they would have you believe they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not either so stop killing the babies, jackwad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What will republicans do when the condom breaks??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's possible they only have sex for procreation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, you should have warned us you were a comedian. I would have brought my popcorn.
Click to expand...

Now you know! Keep the popcorn handy.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be one day.  In fact, other barbaric things people consider "normal" in this age will also be stopped.   Mark my words.
Click to expand...


I actually posited something a few pages back that actually COULD be possible at some point in the near future and go a long way towards preventing abortions. I asked how people here felt about that but............no takers.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open a newspaper (if you remember what those are).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Pro-choice women don't care about your feelz or your laws. ...s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have to care, but you ARE subject to the laws of my country whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still does not prevent me from having an abortion. You will have to jail A LOT of women. 600,000+ per year.
> 
> And even still, you'll have to figure out that I had an abortion. So you really can't stop me whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...




Something tells me there isn’t a long line of gentlemen eager to participate in your butchery.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.
> 
> And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
> 
> I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.
> 
> But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.
Click to expand...



Don't you think it's best that you stay away from pro-choice women? Keep yourself pure. Don't be tainted. Stay far far far away from us. Save yourself.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open a newspaper (if you remember what those are).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Pro-choice women don't care about your feelz or your laws. ...s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have to care, but you ARE subject to the laws of my country whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still does not prevent me from having an abortion. You will have to jail A LOT of women. 600,000+ per year.
> 
> And even still, you'll have to figure out that I had an abortion. So you really can't stop me whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something tells me there isn’t a long line of gentlemen eager to participate in your butchery.
Click to expand...


You'll never know for sure! But you'll still have your feelz to comfort you.


----------



## gipper

NotYourBody said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.
Click to expand...

Okay time for some logical thinking. 

Before Roe how many abortions occurred?  Now compared that figure to the number after Roe?  Can you come to the conclusion that when it became legal it also occurred much more often?  If it is outlawed again, do you think it will occur much less often?


----------



## NotYourBody

gipper said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay time for some logical thinking.
> 
> Before Roe how many abortions occurred?  Now compared that figure to the number after Roe?  Can you come to the conclusion that when it became legal it also occurred much more often?  If it is outlawed again, do you think it will occur much less often?
Click to expand...

And you know how many abortions occurred before Roe v wade how?

Including all the back alley abortions and the self-induced abortions? No. You do not know that. 

No law will stop a pro-choice woman who is determined. It just will not. Control the things you can.


----------



## MaryL

It's my body my choice. Removing cancerous tumors or anything else superficial, yes. Plastic surgery. Yes, but a human fetus in a womb? Better think twice about that. Some man named William Blake wrote: "To see the  universe in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower , to hold infinity in the palm of your hand. To see eternity in an hour..." Is that life in your womb YOURS to take?


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.
> 
> And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
> 
> I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.
> 
> But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it's best that you stay away from pro-choice women? Keep yourself pure. Don't be tainted. Stay far far far away from us. Save yourself.
Click to expand...


No, I will continue to reach the ones who are actually reasonable, sincere and open to change.  And there _are _people like that who identify as prochoice. I've been debating this topic for years, and I've seen with my own two eyes people change their minds.  (Heck, my own mind changed on this issue. I used to be on the other side.)   The other types, the arrogant, angry ones that seem to be demonically influenced... well, I don't think they are reachable, but they do need prayer, so I guess I should pray for them.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.
> 
> And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
> 
> I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.
> 
> But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it's best that you stay away from pro-choice women? Keep yourself pure. Don't be tainted. Stay far far far away from us. Save yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I will continue to reach the ones who are actually reasonable, sincere and open to change.  And there _are _people like that who identify as prochoice. I've been debating this topic for years, and I've seen with my own two eyes people change their minds.  (Heck, my own mind changed on this issue. I used to be on the other side.)   The other types, the arrogant, angry ones that seem to be demonically influenced... well, I don't think they are reachable, but they do need prayer, so I guess I should pray for them.
Click to expand...


No, you will not reach the women who refuse to allow anyone else to control her body or anything inside of it. That is a fact.

I'm sorry that upsets you so much.

I promise I will never try to stop you from attempting to convince women that they should follow YOUR religion, morality, values, life choices, your pregnancy rules and whatever else you think you need to control in women. And if you are successful with that, more power to you. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't pretend you can stop us with words on paper. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.


----------



## Leo123

[QUOTE="NotYourBody, post: 22438478, member: 72170"


I promise I will never try to stop you from attempting to convince women that they should follow YOUR religion, morality, values, life choices, your pregnancy rules and whatever else you think you need to control in women. And if you are successful with that, more power to you. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't pretend you can stop us with words on paper. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.[/QUOTE]

Men and women were meant to procreate with each other in order to have and raise children, not to have omnipotent power over each other.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay time for some logical thinking.
> 
> Before Roe how many abortions occurred?  Now compared that figure to the number after Roe?  Can you come to the conclusion that when it became legal it also occurred much more often?  If it is outlawed again, do you think it will occur much less often?
Click to expand...


Before Roe, physicians did not do abortions. The performed D & C's.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.
> 
> And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
> 
> I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.
> 
> But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it's best that you stay away from pro-choice women? Keep yourself pure. Don't be tainted. Stay far far far away from us. Save yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I will continue to reach the ones who are actually reasonable, sincere and open to change.  And there _are _people like that who identify as prochoice. I've been debating this topic for years, and I've seen with my own two eyes people change their minds.  (Heck, my own mind changed on this issue. I used to be on the other side.)   The other types, the arrogant, angry ones that seem to be demonically influenced... well, I don't think they are reachable, but they do need prayer, so I guess I should pray for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you will not reach the women who refuse to allow anyone else to control her body or anything inside of it. That is a fact.
> 
> I'm sorry that upsets you so much.
> 
> I promise I will never try to stop you from attempting to convince women that they should follow YOUR religion, morality, values, life choices, your pregnancy rules and whatever else you think you need to control in women. And if you are successful with that, more power to you. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't pretend you can stop us with words on paper. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
Click to expand...


Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.

I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.

And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.

Here's an image from their page:


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.
> 
> And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
> 
> I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.
> 
> But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it's best that you stay away from pro-choice women? Keep yourself pure. Don't be tainted. Stay far far far away from us. Save yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I will continue to reach the ones who are actually reasonable, sincere and open to change.  And there _are _people like that who identify as prochoice. I've been debating this topic for years, and I've seen with my own two eyes people change their minds.  (Heck, my own mind changed on this issue. I used to be on the other side.)   The other types, the arrogant, angry ones that seem to be demonically influenced... well, I don't think they are reachable, but they do need prayer, so I guess I should pray for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you will not reach the women who refuse to allow anyone else to control her body or anything inside of it. That is a fact.
> 
> I'm sorry that upsets you so much.
> 
> I promise I will never try to stop you from attempting to convince women that they should follow YOUR religion, morality, values, life choices, your pregnancy rules and whatever else you think you need to control in women. And if you are successful with that, more power to you. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't pretend you can stop us with words on paper. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.
> 
> I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.
> 
> And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.
> 
> Here's an image from their page:
Click to expand...


Too bad that you are not old enough to remember before Roe. The truth is that people saw what was happening, and made a change for the better. BTW, I fail to see how putting MD's in prison is a win/win situation.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open a newspaper (if you remember what those are).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Pro-choice women don't care about your feelz or your laws. ...s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have to care, but you ARE subject to the laws of my country whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still does not prevent me from having an abortion. You will have to jail A LOT of women. 600,000+ per year.
> 
> And even still, you'll have to figure out that I had an abortion. So you really can't stop me whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something tells me there isn’t a long line of gentlemen eager to participate in your butchery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never know for sure! ....
Click to expand...


You make it pretty obvious.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.
> 
> I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.
> 
> And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.
> 
> Here's an image from their page:



Well I don't really know what your reasons are for trying to control a body that is not your own, and honestly I don't care.

Again. I will not try to stop you from changing minds! Why would I even want to do that?

My position is that when you start legislating control of my body, I will start hollering. And reminding you that you don't have the power to stop me.

I thought you were upset. Sorry if I made a wrong assumption. When people resort to name calling, it seems a little defensive, jmo.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Pro-choice women don't care about your feelz or your laws. ...s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have to care, but you ARE subject to the laws of my country whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still does not prevent me from having an abortion. You will have to jail A LOT of women. 600,000+ per year.
> 
> And even still, you'll have to figure out that I had an abortion. So you really can't stop me whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something tells me there isn’t a long line of gentlemen eager to participate in your butchery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never know for sure! ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make it pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm happy that thought makes you feel better. Truly. I don't like to see people so upset about something they have no control over.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.
> 
> And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
> 
> I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.
> 
> But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it's best that you stay away from pro-choice women? Keep yourself pure. Don't be tainted. Stay far far far away from us. Save yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I will continue to reach the ones who are actually reasonable, sincere and open to change.  And there _are _people like that who identify as prochoice. I've been debating this topic for years, and I've seen with my own two eyes people change their minds.  (Heck, my own mind changed on this issue. I used to be on the other side.)   The other types, the arrogant, angry ones that seem to be demonically influenced... well, I don't think they are reachable, but they do need prayer, so I guess I should pray for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you will not reach the women who refuse to allow anyone else to control her body or anything inside of it. That is a fact.
> 
> I'm sorry that upsets you so much.
> 
> I promise I will never try to stop you from attempting to convince women that they should follow YOUR religion, morality, values, life choices, your pregnancy rules and whatever else you think you need to control in women. And if you are successful with that, more power to you. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't pretend you can stop us with words on paper. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.
> 
> I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.
> 
> And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.
> 
> Here's an image from their page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad that you are not old enough to remember before Roe. The truth is that people saw what was happening, and made a change for the better. BTW, I fail to see how putting MD's in prison is a win/win situation.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make any sense. Feel free to elaborate.

Also, the entire abortion movement was founded on lies and deceit. If you don't believe me, hear it straight from the horse's mouth.  From 'Jane Roe' of Roe-v-Wade... and from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL and one of the biggest abortionists of all time.  (And there are tons more doctors or clinic workers who have made similar statements about the current industry.)

Here you go:

“I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought ‘legal’ child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. *It was all a lie.*  Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave. Please, don’t follow in my mistakes."

– Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade)


"*I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name*….. I would like nothing more than to have this law overturned, either by an act of Congress or a reversal in the Supreme Court."

– Norma McCorvey, Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 1998.







____________________________


"Why did I change my mind? Well, to begin with, it was not from a religious conviction, ... I am an Atheist... In any case, the change of mind began with the realization, the *inescapable reality that the fetus, that embryo, is a person, is a protectable human life.* The change also began on the basis of my own secular belief in the golden rule: if you would not have your own life taken away from you, you must not take someone else's life."

– Dr Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, former abortionist who presided over 75,000 abortions

'*We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures.* We succeeded [in breaking down the laws limiting abortions] because the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85% of the public favoured unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5%. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted [by the media] as though they had been written in law.’

– Dr Bernard Nathanson, quoted in John Powell, Abortion: the silent Holocaust. Tabor, Allen,Texas. 1981





​


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have to care, but you ARE subject to the laws of my country whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That still does not prevent me from having an abortion. You will have to jail A LOT of women. 600,000+ per year.
> 
> And even still, you'll have to figure out that I had an abortion. So you really can't stop me whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something tells me there isn’t a long line of gentlemen eager to participate in your butchery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never know for sure! ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make it pretty obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, I'm happy that thought makes you feel better. Truly. I don't like to see people so upset about something they have no control over.
Click to expand...



I didn’t say it made me feel any particular way. Society does, always has, always will have control over  many things you may or may not want to do with your body.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.
> 
> I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.
> 
> And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.
> 
> Here's an image from their page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't really know what your reasons are for trying to control a body that is not your own, and honestly I don't care.
> 
> Again. I will not try to stop you from changing minds! Why would I even want to do that?
> 
> My position is that when you start legislating control of my body, I will start hollering. And reminding you that you don't have the power to stop me.
> 
> I thought you were upset. Sorry if I made a wrong assumption. When people resort to name calling, it seems a little defensive, jmo.
Click to expand...


lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."  

Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> That still does not prevent me from having an abortion. You will have to jail A LOT of women. 600,000+ per year.
> 
> And even still, you'll have to figure out that I had an abortion. So you really can't stop me whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something tells me there isn’t a long line of gentlemen eager to participate in your butchery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never know for sure! ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make it pretty obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, I'm happy that thought makes you feel better. Truly. I don't like to see people so upset about something they have no control over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t say it made me feel any particular way. Society does, always has, always will have control over  many things you may or may not want to do with your body.
Click to expand...


Yes they do. 

But they do not have enough control to know when I am pregnant, or to know that I am considering abortion. So you can put words on paper but they won't stop pro-choice women from getting an abortion. Is that concept hard for you to understand?


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something tells me there isn’t a long line of gentlemen eager to participate in your butchery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never know for sure! ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make it pretty obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, I'm happy that thought makes you feel better. Truly. I don't like to see people so upset about something they have no control over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t say it made me feel any particular way. Society does, always has, always will have control over  many things you may or may not want to do with your body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.
> 
> But they do not have enough control to know when I am pregnant, or to know that I am considering abortion. So you can put words on paper but they won't stop pro-choice women from getting an abortion. Is that concept hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...


Of course you're able to do it on your own, with your own hands.  But once paying a hitman to do it for you is illegal (or restricted), contrary to your misguided opinion, laws actually DO make a difference, on this issue. 

One of the myths your side pushes is that laws don't make a difference at all.  This video thoroughly debunks that and 2 other myths:


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it's best that you stay away from pro-choice women? Keep yourself pure. Don't be tainted. Stay far far far away from us. Save yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I will continue to reach the ones who are actually reasonable, sincere and open to change.  And there _are _people like that who identify as prochoice. I've been debating this topic for years, and I've seen with my own two eyes people change their minds.  (Heck, my own mind changed on this issue. I used to be on the other side.)   The other types, the arrogant, angry ones that seem to be demonically influenced... well, I don't think they are reachable, but they do need prayer, so I guess I should pray for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you will not reach the women who refuse to allow anyone else to control her body or anything inside of it. That is a fact.
> 
> I'm sorry that upsets you so much.
> 
> I promise I will never try to stop you from attempting to convince women that they should follow YOUR religion, morality, values, life choices, your pregnancy rules and whatever else you think you need to control in women. And if you are successful with that, more power to you. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't pretend you can stop us with words on paper. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.
> 
> I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.
> 
> And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.
> 
> Here's an image from their page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad that you are not old enough to remember before Roe. The truth is that people saw what was happening, and made a change for the better. BTW, I fail to see how putting MD's in prison is a win/win situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. Feel free to elaborate.
> 
> Also, the entire abortion movement was founded on lies and deceit. If you don't believe me, hear it straight from the horse's mouth.  From 'Jane Roe' of Roe-v-Wade... and from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL and one of the biggest abortionists of all time.  (And there are tons more doctors or clinic workers who have made similar statements about the current industry.)
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> “I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought ‘legal’ child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. *It was all a lie.*  Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave. Please, don’t follow in my mistakes."
> 
> – Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade)
> 
> 
> "*I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name*….. I would like nothing more than to have this law overturned, either by an act of Congress or a reversal in the Supreme Court."
> 
> – Norma McCorvey, Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 1998.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> 
> "Why did I change my mind? Well, to begin with, it was not from a religious conviction, ... I am an Atheist... In any case, the change of mind began with the realization, the *inescapable reality that the fetus, that embryo, is a person, is a protectable human life.* The change also began on the basis of my own secular belief in the golden rule: if you would not have your own life taken away from you, you must not take someone else's life."
> 
> – Dr Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, former abortionist who presided over 75,000 abortions
> 
> '*We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures.* We succeeded [in breaking down the laws limiting abortions] because the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85% of the public favoured unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5%. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted [by the media] as though they had been written in law.’
> 
> – Dr Bernard Nathanson, quoted in John Powell, Abortion: the silent Holocaust. Tabor, Allen,Texas. 1981
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Oh, it is a CONSPIRACY! Why didn't you say so. Elvis was probably involved, too.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."
> 
> Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:



Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments. 

My ONLY ONLY *ONLY* concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.

It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.

So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just *canNOT* have any control of my body or what is inside of it. 

NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never know for sure! ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it pretty obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, I'm happy that thought makes you feel better. Truly. I don't like to see people so upset about something they have no control over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t say it made me feel any particular way. Society does, always has, always will have control over  many things you may or may not want to do with your body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.
> 
> But they do not have enough control to know when I am pregnant, or to know that I am considering abortion. So you can put words on paper but they won't stop pro-choice women from getting an abortion. Is that concept hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're able to do it on your own, with your own hands.  But once paying a hitman to do it for you is illegal (or restricted), contrary to your misguided opinion, laws actually DO make a difference, on this issue.
> 
> One of the myths your side pushes is that laws don't make a difference at all.  This video thoroughly debunks that and 2 other myths:
Click to expand...

Come for me then. You'll have to find me and my medical friend who will help me. How you gonna know where we are? How you gonna know I was ever pregnant?

I believe I said you cannot stop a determined woman from getting an abortion no matter what laws you pass.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I will continue to reach the ones who are actually reasonable, sincere and open to change.  And there _are _people like that who identify as prochoice. I've been debating this topic for years, and I've seen with my own two eyes people change their minds.  (Heck, my own mind changed on this issue. I used to be on the other side.)   The other types, the arrogant, angry ones that seem to be demonically influenced... well, I don't think they are reachable, but they do need prayer, so I guess I should pray for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you will not reach the women who refuse to allow anyone else to control her body or anything inside of it. That is a fact.
> 
> I'm sorry that upsets you so much.
> 
> I promise I will never try to stop you from attempting to convince women that they should follow YOUR religion, morality, values, life choices, your pregnancy rules and whatever else you think you need to control in women. And if you are successful with that, more power to you. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't pretend you can stop us with words on paper. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.
> 
> I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.
> 
> And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.
> 
> Here's an image from their page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad that you are not old enough to remember before Roe. The truth is that people saw what was happening, and made a change for the better. BTW, I fail to see how putting MD's in prison is a win/win situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. Feel free to elaborate.
> 
> Also, the entire abortion movement was founded on lies and deceit. If you don't believe me, hear it straight from the horse's mouth.  From 'Jane Roe' of Roe-v-Wade... and from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL and one of the biggest abortionists of all time.  (And there are tons more doctors or clinic workers who have made similar statements about the current industry.)
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> “I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought ‘legal’ child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. *It was all a lie.*  Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave. Please, don’t follow in my mistakes."
> 
> – Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade)
> 
> 
> "*I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name*….. I would like nothing more than to have this law overturned, either by an act of Congress or a reversal in the Supreme Court."
> 
> – Norma McCorvey, Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 1998.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> 
> "Why did I change my mind? Well, to begin with, it was not from a religious conviction, ... I am an Atheist... In any case, the change of mind began with the realization, the *inescapable reality that the fetus, that embryo, is a person, is a protectable human life.* The change also began on the basis of my own secular belief in the golden rule: if you would not have your own life taken away from you, you must not take someone else's life."
> 
> – Dr Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, former abortionist who presided over 75,000 abortions
> 
> '*We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures.* We succeeded [in breaking down the laws limiting abortions] because the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85% of the public favoured unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5%. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted [by the media] as though they had been written in law.’
> 
> – Dr Bernard Nathanson, quoted in John Powell, Abortion: the silent Holocaust. Tabor, Allen,Texas. 1981
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it is a CONSPIRACY! Why didn't you say so. Elvis was probably involved, too.
Click to expand...


Nope, never said that or even thought that.  But apparently I touched a nerve, for you to respond in such a deceptive way, while completely ignoring the quotes *straight from the horse's mouth* that the entire abortion movement was founded on lies.  I guess you don't care about lies and deceit?  Ok.   I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."
> 
> Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments.
> 
> My ONLY ONLY *ONLY* concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.
> 
> It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.
> 
> So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just *canNOT* have any control of my body or what is inside of it.
> 
> NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO
Click to expand...


lol.  You're projecting.  I'm the one trying to have a rational debate here (which I can see is impossible with you) and you're the one who has been acting like a child, basically saying "I don't care ,I don't care I don't care!  la la la la la" with fingers in your ears.

I do hope that some day you grow up.  As I and others said to you before, you WILL be held accountable for your actions.  I have zero doubt about that.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% I support unwanted pregnancy prevention. That's where all the efforts should be concentrated. Once the unwanted pregnancy has occurred, it can't be controlled by anyone except the mother who contains it inside her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Control and killing are two different things unless control is used wrongfully for evil purposes. Controlling what you eat, smoke, drink etc is examples of good control that will lead to a healthy outcome for you and the baby, but controlling the way that you will kill the life within you uhh is evil. What maybe controlling the way the coat hanger is held while fishing for that life inside in order to kill it ?? That is an example of evil control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how any of that affects my ability to say NO to letting anyone control any living tissue inside of my body.
> 
> So I have a total and complete disagreement with any argument that allows any other person to claim a right of control over my body and what is inside of my body. We are at a log jam.
> 
> I win because I have the upper hand  - you don't know I'm pregnant. You can't stop me from aborting the pregnancy.
> 
> You just can't change those two facts, unfortunately for you.
Click to expand...

Murderers hold out until also caught in life. Just sayin. Better hope the R-v-W don't change, because there might end up being some folks on the run from the law if engage in criminal acts like killing a living human being.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."
> 
> Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments.
> 
> My ONLY ONLY *ONLY* concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.
> 
> It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.
> 
> So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just *canNOT* have any control of my body or what is inside of it.
> 
> NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  You're projecting.  I'm the one trying to have a rational debate here (which I can see is impossible with you) and you're the one who has been acting like a child, basically saying "I don't care ,I don't care I don't care!  la la la la la" with fingers in your ears.
> 
> I do hope that some day you grow up.  As I and others said to you before, you WILL be held accountable for your actions.  I have zero doubt about that.
Click to expand...


You're trying to tell me why I should believe the same things you believe and why I should follow your idea of what I must do with an unwanted pregnancy. I'm telling you that is not only not your business, it is not even in the realm of your control.

You want to debate that? Tell me how I'm wrong. Because until you can do that, I'm not sure why I would listen to you. 

I'm not trying to be difficult. I am providing you with one pro-choice position. I feel it is stronger than any other position a person can take on the abortion issue and, so far, nobody has been able to demonstrate that I am incorrect.

So we'll continue fighting this never-ending war and women who want/need/are determined to get an abortion, WILL get an abortion.

The whole thing seems pointless but you do you, and I'll do me.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you will not reach the women who refuse to allow anyone else to control her body or anything inside of it. That is a fact.
> 
> I'm sorry that upsets you so much.
> 
> I promise I will never try to stop you from attempting to convince women that they should follow YOUR religion, morality, values, life choices, your pregnancy rules and whatever else you think you need to control in women. And if you are successful with that, more power to you. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't pretend you can stop us with words on paper. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.
> 
> I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.
> 
> And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.
> 
> Here's an image from their page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad that you are not old enough to remember before Roe. The truth is that people saw what was happening, and made a change for the better. BTW, I fail to see how putting MD's in prison is a win/win situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. Feel free to elaborate.
> 
> Also, the entire abortion movement was founded on lies and deceit. If you don't believe me, hear it straight from the horse's mouth.  From 'Jane Roe' of Roe-v-Wade... and from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL and one of the biggest abortionists of all time.  (And there are tons more doctors or clinic workers who have made similar statements about the current industry.)
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> “I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought ‘legal’ child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. *It was all a lie.*  Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave. Please, don’t follow in my mistakes."
> 
> – Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade)
> 
> 
> "*I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name*….. I would like nothing more than to have this law overturned, either by an act of Congress or a reversal in the Supreme Court."
> 
> – Norma McCorvey, Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 1998.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> 
> "Why did I change my mind? Well, to begin with, it was not from a religious conviction, ... I am an Atheist... In any case, the change of mind began with the realization, the *inescapable reality that the fetus, that embryo, is a person, is a protectable human life.* The change also began on the basis of my own secular belief in the golden rule: if you would not have your own life taken away from you, you must not take someone else's life."
> 
> – Dr Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, former abortionist who presided over 75,000 abortions
> 
> '*We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures.* We succeeded [in breaking down the laws limiting abortions] because the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85% of the public favoured unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5%. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted [by the media] as though they had been written in law.’
> 
> – Dr Bernard Nathanson, quoted in John Powell, Abortion: the silent Holocaust. Tabor, Allen,Texas. 1981
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it is a CONSPIRACY! Why didn't you say so. Elvis was probably involved, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, never said that or even thought that.  But apparently I touched a nerve, for you to respond in such a deceptive way, while completely ignoring the quotes *straight from the horse's mouth* that the entire abortion movement was founded on lies.  I guess you don't care about lies and deceit?  Ok.   I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...


There is no "abortion movement" There is an anti-abortion movement, fighting against  the 60% of Americans who are pro-choice. The SC made the abortion case, not some sort of underground propaganda machine. My previous post that makes no sense to you is as simple as I can make it. It is too bad that you are not old enough to remember what it was like before a woman could get a safe abortion. Secondly, putting a lot of MD's in prison is not my idea of a solution to anything.

 Most importantly, it is absolutely none of your business what my wife and daughter do with their bodies.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% I support unwanted pregnancy prevention. That's where all the efforts should be concentrated. Once the unwanted pregnancy has occurred, it can't be controlled by anyone except the mother who contains it inside her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Control and killing are two different things unless control is used wrongfully for evil purposes. Controlling what you eat, smoke, drink etc is examples of good control that will lead to a healthy outcome for you and the baby, but controlling the way that you will kill the life within you uhh is evil. What maybe controlling the way the coat hanger is held while fishing for that life inside in order to kill it ?? That is an example of evil control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how any of that affects my ability to say NO to letting anyone control any living tissue inside of my body.
> 
> So I have a total and complete disagreement with any argument that allows any other person to claim a right of control over my body and what is inside of my body. We are at a log jam.
> 
> I win because I have the upper hand  - you don't know I'm pregnant. You can't stop me from aborting the pregnancy.
> 
> You just can't change those two facts, unfortunately for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murderers hold out until also caught in life. Just sayin. Better hope the R-v-W don't change, because there might end up being some folks on the run from the law if engage in criminal acts like killing a living human being.
Click to expand...


Okay.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "hey evil is winning", just don't fight it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd concept isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes absurd is correct, but it depends on your definition of absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I generally go by the definition I find in recognized dictionaries.
Click to expand...

Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.


----------



## MaryL

Definitions are queer things. Infanticide on one hand, abortion on the other.


----------



## NotYourBody

MaryL said:


> Definitions are queer things. Infanticide on one hand, abortion on the other.


Pretty sure both are in the dictionary, if you are confused.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.


If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!


----------



## beagle9

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."
> 
> Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments.
> 
> My ONLY ONLY *ONLY* concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.
> 
> It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.
> 
> So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just *canNOT* have any control of my body or what is inside of it.
> 
> NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  You're projecting.  I'm the one trying to have a rational debate here (which I can see is impossible with you) and you're the one who has been acting like a child, basically saying "I don't care ,I don't care I don't care!  la la la la la" with fingers in your ears.
> 
> I do hope that some day you grow up.  As I and others said to you before, you WILL be held accountable for your actions.  I have zero doubt about that.
Click to expand...

May surprise you as to how old some of them are, and thinking like they do.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
Click to expand...

I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.


----------



## jillian

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


Talking points?

No one has any business making personal choices for others.  You certainly aren’t smart enough to do so

Mostly, mind your own business and keep your religious extremism to yourself and leave the 79% of us alone


----------



## MaryL

NotYourBody said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitions are queer things. Infanticide on one hand, abortion on the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure both are in the dictionary, if you are confused.
Click to expand...

I was asking a rhetorical question.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
Click to expand...


Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined. 

Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.

I'm still in control. You are not. 

But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.


----------



## NotYourBody

MaryL said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitions are queer things. Infanticide on one hand, abortion on the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure both are in the dictionary, if you are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was asking a sort of, what do you call it, a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

Oh it was a question? My mistake.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."
> 
> Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments.
> 
> My ONLY ONLY *ONLY* concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.
> 
> It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.
> 
> So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just *canNOT* have any control of my body or what is inside of it.
> 
> NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  You're projecting.  I'm the one trying to have a rational debate here (which I can see is impossible with you) and you're the one who has been acting like a child, basically saying "I don't care ,I don't care I don't care!  la la la la la" with fingers in your ears.
> 
> I do hope that some day you grow up.  As I and others said to you before, you WILL be held accountable for your actions.  I have zero doubt about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to tell me why I should believe the same things you believe and why I should follow your idea of what I must do with an unwanted pregnancy. I'm telling you that is not only not your business, it is not even in the realm of your control.
> 
> You want to debate that? Tell me how I'm wrong. Because until you can do that, I'm not sure why I would listen to you.
> 
> I'm not trying to be difficult. I am providing you with one pro-choice position. I feel it is stronger than any other position a person can take on the abortion issue and, so far, nobody has been able to demonstrate that I am incorrect.
> 
> So we'll continue fighting this never-ending war and women who want/need/are determined to get an abortion, WILL get an abortion.
> 
> The whole thing seems pointless but you do you, and I'll do me.
Click to expand...

_Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _

_"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _

_It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _

_How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. I won't hold my breath._


----------



## MaryL

NotYourBody said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitions are queer things. Infanticide on one hand, abortion on the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure both are in the dictionary, if you are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was asking a sort of, what do you call it, a rhetorical question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh it was a question? My mistake.
Click to expand...

OK, perhaps you don't understand what rhetorical means. Would you like to make a point?


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> 
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It the same way reality always works. You cannot stop someone from driving drunk, but you can arrest them and punish them if you catch them.
> 
> Same thing with abortion. You'll just have to find the pregnant woman who aborted the baby and then you can put her in jail. You CANNOT stop her from aborting the baby.
> 
> In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe some kind of boot camp, where young women are taught proper Christian values. What would the punishment be for refusing to go?
Click to expand...

If need a boot camp to teach anything, then you have truly messed this country up now. Do you listen to yourself making crazy statements due to your stance on being pro-baby in the womb killer or a justifier of it ??


----------



## LilOlLady

Vandalshandle said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to the redefined definitions of words, like, "abortion" is "murder", and so many other redefinitions that can be found in the novel, "Animal Farm", like, "everyone is created equal" means that, "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others", then, authoritarian Big Brother (from "1984") becomes our dictatorial leader. As much as he may think that is true, it is not, and we are not sheep of the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When we play semantics to justify the taking of human life we have lost our way. Nothing teaches our children - the ones we allow to be born - the value of life like abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to teach your children anything you like. I will do the same.
Click to expand...

Pro Choice teaches your kids disrespect for life. Children know the baby in your stomach is her brother and sister and not a nothing fetus. They feel it move, hear the heartbeat and say pictures. Never heard a child call the unborn a fetus but call it a baby. This should tell us something, Maybe those old Pro Choice fucks beyond the age of viability and usefulness should be aborted to make room for those babies that are aborted. Oh, Nature has already done that.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."
> 
> Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments.
> 
> My ONLY ONLY *ONLY* concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.
> 
> It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.
> 
> So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just *canNOT* have any control of my body or what is inside of it.
> 
> NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO
Click to expand...



Society has had that control your entire life, and will even after you die. Grow up, because that FACT isn't going to change.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
Click to expand...



Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.


----------



## NotYourBody

Pumpkin Row said:


> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_



Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.  

If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate. 

I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> Society has had that control your entire life, and will even after you die. Grow up, because that FACT isn't going to change.




Yeah? Is that why you can't stop me from getting an abortion if I want one. Is that what you call Winning!


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
Click to expand...

Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would know better than what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
Click to expand...

You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for* 61-percent of child murders *under the age of five. ... statistics, *450 children are murdered by their parents each year *in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we desensitize ourselves to the redefined definitions of words, like, "abortion" is "murder", and so many other redefinitions that can be found in the novel, "Animal Farm", like, "everyone is created equal" means that, "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others", then, authoritarian Big Brother (from "1984") becomes our dictatorial leader. As much as he may think that is true, it is not, and we are not sheep of the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When we play semantics to justify the taking of human life we have lost our way. Nothing teaches our children - the ones we allow to be born - the value of life like abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to teach your children anything you like. I will do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pro Choice teaches your kids disrespect for life. Children know the baby in your stomach is her brother and sister and not a nothing fetus. They feel it move, hear the heartbeat and say pictures. Never heard a child call the unborn a fetus but call it a baby. This should tell us something, Maybe those old Pro Choice fucks beyond the age of viability and usefulness should be aborted to make room for those babies that are aborted. Oh, Nature has already done that.
Click to expand...


So, you are in favor of my teaching to YOUR kids? Ok. let's start with atheism.


----------



## NotYourBody

MaryL said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitions are queer things. Infanticide on one hand, abortion on the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure both are in the dictionary, if you are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was asking a sort of, what do you call it, a rhetorical question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh it was a question? My mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, perhaps you don't understand what rhetorical means. Would you like to make a point?
Click to expand...

No. I'm good. Perhaps you can discuss your rhetorical question with someone else.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would know better than what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
Click to expand...



And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some kind of boot camp, where young women are taught proper Christian values. What would the punishment be for refusing to go?
> 
> 
> 
> If need a boot camp to teach anything, then you have truly messed this country up now. Do you listen to yourself making crazy statements due to your stance on being pro-baby in the womb killer or a justifier of it ??
Click to expand...


Because even non-Christian women must follow Christian values? Good grief.

Do you listen to yourself making INSANE statements about your feelings of entitlement over control of another person's body and what is inside of it? A person you have never even met? That doesn't sound strange to you?


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would know better than what?
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
Click to expand...

Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.

The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.

You ARE pro abortion


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Pumpkin Row said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."
> 
> Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments.
> 
> My ONLY ONLY *ONLY* concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.
> 
> It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.
> 
> So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just *canNOT* have any control of my body or what is inside of it.
> 
> NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  You're projecting.  I'm the one trying to have a rational debate here (which I can see is impossible with you) and you're the one who has been acting like a child, basically saying "I don't care ,I don't care I don't care!  la la la la la" with fingers in your ears.
> 
> I do hope that some day you grow up.  As I and others said to you before, you WILL be held accountable for your actions.  I have zero doubt about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to tell me why I should believe the same things you believe and why I should follow your idea of what I must do with an unwanted pregnancy. I'm telling you that is not only not your business, it is not even in the realm of your control.
> 
> You want to debate that? Tell me how I'm wrong. Because until you can do that, I'm not sure why I would listen to you.
> 
> I'm not trying to be difficult. I am providing you with one pro-choice position. I feel it is stronger than any other position a person can take on the abortion issue and, so far, nobody has been able to demonstrate that I am incorrect.
> 
> So we'll continue fighting this never-ending war and women who want/need/are determined to get an abortion, WILL get an abortion.
> 
> The whole thing seems pointless but you do you, and I'll do me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. I won't hold my breath._
Click to expand...


There she is....well done Pumpkin. Well done


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
Click to expand...


He's a dunce spewing the same tired BS


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
Click to expand...


I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Government’s most basic duty is to respect and follow Constitutional case law, to respect the rights of citizens, and to obey the rule of law – in this case respect a woman’s right to privacy.


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
Click to expand...



Are you still pretending to be a woman, or are other trolls taking a turn with your sock account?


----------



## beagle9

Flopper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. * However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That in red.....A human fetus is alive and developing......a human corpse is dead and has no life.   A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living.   A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and.....will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA.   Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. The soul has left the dead body once it passes, but a unique soul has entered into the flesh that is forming or growing in the womb of another. 

The soul is a unique character/personality given to the flesh in order to complete the whole person or human being that occupies the flesh that is forming or has formed in the womb......


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
Click to expand...


The baby didn't suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere, like lightning striking.  It's YOUR own actions (and of course the guy's) that cause that new life to come into existence.  *Cause and effect.* That is a universal truth, that you can't get around.  Actions have consequences.    So when you KNOWINGLY engage in an act that has consequences, don't turn around and act like the victim, when people expect you to face those consequences, in a responsible, ethical way.  Again, you are not the victim.  The new precious human life you brought into existence -  the one you advocate dismembering and disposing of like garbage - is the victim.

We as a society need to get to the point where (as someone else put it) the current brainwashing is undone, and we begin to view these matters in an entirely different way.  Unless one is mentally retarded or a child, everyone KNOWS that sex can cause pregnancy. It is one of the consequences.  So if you have sex, KNOWING the consequences, yet you willingly do it anyway, then you are tacitly consenting to those consequences. Including pregnancy.  Face the consequences, stop trampling all over the rights of others (innocent, vulnerable human beings) due to your selfishness, irresponsibility and desire for convenience.


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
Click to expand...

You're a guy arent you. Probably recently banned so you grabbed this username.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Government’s most basic duty is to respect and follow Constitutional case law, to respect the rights of citizens, and to obey the rule of law – in this case respect a woman’s right to privacy.
Click to expand...

Respect ??? Where does the baby get this respect ?? The people have gotten so evil, that they don't respect those they can see, much less of those they can't see while refusing to view the ultrasound. The indoctrination has been long and deceptive over the years. Time to change all that by going back towards the light.


----------



## NotYourBody

LilOlLady said:


> Feel free to teach your children anything you like. I will do the same.


Pro Choice teaches your kids disrespect for life. Children know the baby in your stomach is her brother and sister and not a nothing fetus. They feel it move, hear the heartbeat and say pictures. Never heard a child call the unborn a fetus but call it a baby. This should tell us something, Maybe those old Pro Choice fucks beyond the age of viability and usefulness should be aborted to make room for those babies that are aborted. Oh, Nature has already done that.[/QUOTE]


Unkotare said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pretending to be a woman, or are other trolls taking a turn with your sock account?
Click to expand...



Awww, you do feel threatened. God bless your heart. It's okay. I understand.


----------



## buttercup

Pumpkin Row said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."
> 
> Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments.
> 
> My ONLY ONLY *ONLY* concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.
> 
> It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.
> 
> So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just *canNOT* have any control of my body or what is inside of it.
> 
> NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  You're projecting.  I'm the one trying to have a rational debate here (which I can see is impossible with you) and you're the one who has been acting like a child, basically saying "I don't care ,I don't care I don't care!  la la la la la" with fingers in your ears.
> 
> I do hope that some day you grow up.  As I and others said to you before, you WILL be held accountable for your actions.  I have zero doubt about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to tell me why I should believe the same things you believe and why I should follow your idea of what I must do with an unwanted pregnancy. I'm telling you that is not only not your business, it is not even in the realm of your control.
> 
> You want to debate that? Tell me how I'm wrong. Because until you can do that, I'm not sure why I would listen to you.
> 
> I'm not trying to be difficult. I am providing you with one pro-choice position. I feel it is stronger than any other position a person can take on the abortion issue and, so far, nobody has been able to demonstrate that I am incorrect.
> 
> So we'll continue fighting this never-ending war and women who want/need/are determined to get an abortion, WILL get an abortion.
> 
> The whole thing seems pointless but you do you, and I'll do me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. I won't hold my breath._
Click to expand...


THANK YOU!  That was exactly what I've been thinking, and trying to tell her, but you articulated it so well.  Once again, excellent post.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a guy arent you. Probably recently banned so you grabbed this username.
Click to expand...



Woman. Never banned.

But if it makes you feel better to think that I am a recently banned man, go with it. I really don't mind a bit.


----------



## gipper

NotYourBody said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay time for some logical thinking.
> 
> Before Roe how many abortions occurred?  Now compared that figure to the number after Roe?  Can you come to the conclusion that when it became legal it also occurred much more often?  If it is outlawed again, do you think it will occur much less often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you know how many abortions occurred before Roe v wade how?
> 
> Including all the back alley abortions and the self-induced abortions? No. You do not know that.
> 
> No law will stop a pro-choice woman who is determined. It just will not. Control the things you can.
Click to expand...

There numbers are available. They are significantly lower than after Roe.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Government’s most basic duty is to respect and follow Constitutional case law, to respect the rights of citizens, and to obey the rule of law – in this case respect a woman’s right to privacy.
Click to expand...


Jones is still flabbergasted the Pope opposes abortion....lmao


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a guy arent you. Probably recently banned so you grabbed this username.
Click to expand...


No doubt it's a sock. Bank it


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a guy arent you. Probably recently banned so you grabbed this username.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Woman. Never banned.
> 
> But if it makes you feel better to think that I am a recently banned man, go with it. I really don't mind a bit.
Click to expand...

Btw, the baby is NOTYOURBODY


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The baby didn't suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere, like lightning striking.  It's YOUR own actions (and of course the guy's) that cause that new life to come into existence.  *Cause and effect.* That is a universal truth, that you can't get around.  Actions have consequences.    So when you KNOWINGLY engage in an act that has consequences, don't turn around and act like the victim, when people expect you to face those consequences, in a responsible, ethical way.  Again, you are not the victim.  The new precious human life you brought into existence -  the one you advocate dismembering and disposing of like garbage - is the victim
> We as a society need to get to the point where (as someone else put it) the current brainwashing is undone, and we begin to view these matters in an entirely different way.  Unless one is mentally retarded or a child, everyone KNOWS that sex can cause pregnancy. It is one of the consequences.  So if you have sex, KNOWING the consequences, yet you willingly do it anyway, then you are tacitly consenting to those consequences. Including pregnancy.  Face the consequences, stop trampling all over the rights of others (innocent, vulnerable human beings) due to your selfishness, irresponsibility and desire for convenience.
Click to expand...


In the time it takes a woman to gestate one unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create THOUSANDS of unwanted pregnancies. Save your responsibility lectures. They ring hollow.

Not your body. Not your control. Prove me wrong if you can. Otherwise I guess you better get to work on that brainwashing business.

Tho I would imagine folks will resist that as well.


----------



## LilOlLady

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
Click to expand...

*NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a guy arent you. Probably recently banned so you grabbed this username.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Woman. Never banned.
> 
> But if it makes you feel better to think that I am a recently banned man, go with it. I really don't mind a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Btw, the baby is NOTYOURBODY
Click to expand...


But it is INSIDE my body. That's what gives me control and not you.


----------



## NotYourBody

LilOlLady said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
Click to expand...


I'm good with that old lady.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The baby didn't suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere, like lightning striking.  It's YOUR own actions (and of course the guy's) that cause that new life to come into existence.  *Cause and effect.* That is a universal truth, that you can't get around.  Actions have consequences.    So when you KNOWINGLY engage in an act that has consequences, don't turn around and act like the victim, when people expect you to face those consequences, in a responsible, ethical way.  Again, you are not the victim.  The new precious human life you brought into existence -  the one you advocate dismembering and disposing of like garbage - is the victim
> We as a society need to get to the point where (as someone else put it) the current brainwashing is undone, and we begin to view these matters in an entirely different way.  Unless one is mentally retarded or a child, everyone KNOWS that sex can cause pregnancy. It is one of the consequences.  So if you have sex, KNOWING the consequences, yet you willingly do it anyway, then you are tacitly consenting to those consequences. Including pregnancy.  Face the consequences, stop trampling all over the rights of others (innocent, vulnerable human beings) due to your selfishness, irresponsibility and desire for convenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the time it takes a woman to gestate one unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create THOUSANDS of unwanted pregnancies. Save your responsibility lectures. They ring hollow.
> 
> Not your body. Not your control. Prove me wrong if you can. Otherwise I guess you better get to work on that brainwashing business.
> 
> Tho I would imagine folks will resist that as well.
> 
> 
> So I'm not buying your agony over
Click to expand...


I already showed you that your bodily autonomy "argument" is invalid, it collapses because it doesn't apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy.  Since that has been your sole "argument" (as far as I've seen), I guess we're done here. You have NO arguments, no justification, no defense whatsoever for your position, just childish, defiant "you can't stop me la la la" comments, that make you look like a rebellious child.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a guy arent you. Probably recently banned so you grabbed this username.
Click to expand...

If I was a guy, I'm not sure I'd care this much about the issue. Maybe if forced vasectomies were being legislated I would be all up in that.

But you can think I'm a guy if you want to. You'll have a surprise when you come for me to put me in abortion murder jail.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> Time to change all that by going back towards the light.



You better hurry!


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
Click to expand...

_If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._

_Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._

_I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._

_Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The baby didn't suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere, like lightning striking.  It's YOUR own actions (and of course the guy's) that cause that new life to come into existence.  *Cause and effect.* That is a universal truth, that you can't get around.  Actions have consequences.    So when you KNOWINGLY engage in an act that has consequences, don't turn around and act like the victim, when people expect you to face those consequences, in a responsible, ethical way.  Again, you are not the victim.  The new precious human life you brought into existence -  the one you advocate dismembering and disposing of like garbage - is the victim
> We as a society need to get to the point where (as someone else put it) the current brainwashing is undone, and we begin to view these matters in an entirely different way.  Unless one is mentally retarded or a child, everyone KNOWS that sex can cause pregnancy. It is one of the consequences.  So if you have sex, KNOWING the consequences, yet you willingly do it anyway, then you are tacitly consenting to those consequences. Including pregnancy.  Face the consequences, stop trampling all over the rights of others (innocent, vulnerable human beings) due to your selfishness, irresponsibility and desire for convenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the time it takes a woman to gestate one unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create THOUSANDS of unwanted pregnancies. Save your responsibility lectures. They ring hollow.
> 
> Not your body. Not your control. Prove me wrong if you can. Otherwise I guess you better get to work on that brainwashing business.
> 
> Tho I would imagine folks will resist that as well.
> 
> 
> So I'm not buying your agony over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already showed you that your bodily autonomy "argument" is invalid, it collapses because it doesn't apply to the entire 9 months of pregnancy.  Since that has been your sole "argument" (as far as I've seen), I guess we're done here. You have NO arguments, no justification, no defense whatsoever for your position, just childish, defiant "you can't stop me la la la" comments, that make you look like a rebellious child.
Click to expand...


And I already told you that your feelings/thoughts/ideas about abortion are meaningless to me. Yet you still want to control me as you would a small child. Unfortunately for you, I am not a small child. You'll have to live with that. I'm sorry that it's upsetting for you.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm good with that old lady.
Click to expand...

You would be if you can kill your baby in the womb.


----------



## NotYourBody

Pumpkin Row said:


> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._



You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY. 

If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.

Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.


----------



## RealDave

Unkotare said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you assfucks back Trump's stealing children at the border.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s a lie.
Click to expand...


Which part?

Trump is stealing children?
You support Trump?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.
> 
> If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.
Click to expand...


You're being schooled by a 17 year old and too stupid to realize it. Everyone one of your posts is the same shit reworded. Don't breed...for the sake of the child, humanity and society.

As for debate? Pumpkin would crush your stupid ass like a grape. Run along now, you're exposed and won't be taken serious by the regs on the forum


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.
> 
> If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being schooled by a 17 year old and too stupid to realize it. Everyone one of your posts is the same shit reworded. Don't breed...for the sake of the child, humanity and society.
> 
> As for debate? Pumpkin would crush your stupid ass like a grape. Run along now, you're exposed and won't be taken serious by the regs on the forum
Click to expand...


And this is usually what happens when folks like you realize you actually CAN'T stop a woman from having an abortion. 

Folks get defensive and upset, name call, rant and rave, carrying on like a hyena railing against their inability to force a woman NOT to abort a baby.

And you still don't win. But Pumpkin is welcome to keep trying, lol.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.
> 
> If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.
Click to expand...

_I'm not denying that you're fully capable of murdering human beings, that was never in question. That's like demanding that I prove you can't sit on your couch, or twiddle your thumbs, when neither one of those were ever the subject I was bringing up. My argument is from ethics, and judging from how your response is, once again, pure egoism, basically "I can murder, therefor I shall", you're not even attempting to justify your position. _

_You see, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act is unethical. You repeatedly stating that I can't control your body or what's inside of it is entirely a strawman that you're flinging at everyone in order to distract from the fact that the act and advocated actions are completely unethical._

_So long as you fully understand that you're literally evil, taking away the rights and life of another solely because you are fully capable. Much like how Nazi Germany slaughtered the Jews because they could, much like how French murdered the upper class because they could, etc. _

_I never expected to change your mind, you don't care what's right or wrong, these posts here are for the lurkers, and those who aren't emotionally attached to their positions, the undecided. I just want to articulate for them exactly what you are. _


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.
> 
> If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.
Click to expand...


*Translation:*  Might makes right.  Convenience and selfishness trumps responsibility and respect for life.  "I don't care about truth, ethics, justice, logic, others, or human rights... I don't care about anything but myself!"    

Thank you for once again _proving _that you're just like that 3 year old with his fingers in his ears, yelling "la la la la la."


----------



## SassyIrishLass

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.
> 
> If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Translation:*  Might makes right.  Convenience and selfishness trumps responsibility and respect for life.  "I don't care about truth, ethics, justice, logic, others, or human rights... I don't care about anything but myself!"
> 
> Thank you for once again _proving _that you're just like that 3 year old with his fingers in his ears, yelling "la la la la la."
Click to expand...


Your typical leftist...you read one you've read them all. Utterly worthless


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
Click to expand...



Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
Click to expand...

Shes right and you know it.


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
Click to expand...


He sees you when you're sleeping...


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shes right and you know it.
Click to expand...


In your dreams, DA. In your dreams.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
Click to expand...


If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.

James 4:17


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shes right and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams, DA. In your dreams.
Click to expand...


You'll see.   It's too bad you seem opposed to learning, even in your older age.  But you'll learn, eventually.


----------



## dblack

SassyIrishLass said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
Click to expand...


We need to start registering pussies, complete with quarterly inspections to detect any pregnancies, and then a birthing camp to make sure everything goes just right.


----------



## beagle9

SassyIrishLass said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
Click to expand...

It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to start registering pussies, complete with quarterly inspections to detect any pregnancies, and then a birthing camp to make sure everything goes just right.
Click to expand...

You thinking like the Nazis now ??


----------



## SassyIrishLass

beagle9 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
Click to expand...


Breaking God's laws carries a much stiffer penalty


----------



## SassyIrishLass

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to start registering pussies, complete with quarterly inspections to detect any pregnancies, and then a birthing camp to make sure everything goes just right.
Click to expand...


Grow up loon, you're neither clever or funny


----------



## NotYourBody

Pumpkin Row said:


> _I'm not denying that you're fully capable of murdering human beings, that was never in question. That's like demanding that I prove you can't sit on your couch, or twiddle your thumbs, when neither one of those were ever the subject I was bringing up. My argument is from ethics, and judging from how your response is, once again, pure egoism, basically "I can murder, therefor I shall", you're not even attempting to justify your position. _
> 
> _You see, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act is unethical. You repeatedly stating that I can't control your body or what's inside of it is entirely a strawman that you're flinging at everyone in order to distract from the fact that the act and advocated actions are completely unethical._
> 
> _So long as you fully understand that you're literally evil, taking away the rights and life of another solely because you are fully capable. Much like how Nazi Germany slaughtered the Jews because they could, much like how French murdered the upper class because they could, etc. _
> 
> _I never expected to change your mind, you don't care what's right or wrong, these posts here are for the lurkers, and those who aren't emotionally attached to their positions, the undecided. I just want to articulate for them exactly what you are. _



Friend, I have not pretended to be anything other than what I am. I've not hidden my motives, made false claims, or been disingenuous. I'm pretty sure by now folks in this thread already know exactly what I am.

The fact that you feel the need to inform everyone about something they can clearly see with their own eyes is indicative of someone who likes to be in everybody's business. That could prove difficult for you in the future.

Scold me if it makes you feel superior. It's just one more reason why I think to myself 'these people actually think they will EVER gain control over my decisions regarding my body?!' LMAO! You are insane.

I question your intelligence AND your ethics if you think you have license over another person's body and what is inside of it.

NO.


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> Your typical leftist...you read one you've read them all. Utterly worthless



If only they would all abort themselves...


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shes right and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams, DA. In your dreams.
Click to expand...

*"If you see the innocent being led away to their death, do not turn your face away and say, 'I did not see' for there is One in heaven who watches, and He knows"* -- God


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shes right and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams, DA. In your dreams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll see.   It's too bad you seem opposed to learning, even in your older age.  But you'll learn, eventually.
Click to expand...


Do you charge for your ethics and morality lectures, or are they always free?


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to start registering pussies, complete with quarterly inspections to detect any pregnancies, and then a birthing camp to make sure everything goes just right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thinking like the Nazis now ??
Click to expand...

Just wondering how your "Great Society" is going to be realized. You've already mentioned the indoctrination efforts. The next step is some kind of reliable means of detecting when a fetus is murdered. Obviously, doctors should be required to tag fetuses as soon as a pregnancy is detected, but there will be outliers who don't go to a doctor.


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shes right and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams, DA. In your dreams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll see.   It's too bad you seem opposed to learning, even in your older age.  But you'll learn, eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you charge for your ethics and morality lectures, or are they always free?
Click to expand...


Oh, there's nothing free about it.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shes right and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams, DA. In your dreams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If you see the innocent being led away to their death, do not turn your face away and say, 'I did not see' for there is One in heaven who watches, and He knows"* -- God
Click to expand...


{sigh}


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shes right and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams, DA. In your dreams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If you see the innocent being led away to their death, do not turn your face away and say, 'I did not see' for there is One in heaven who watches, and He knows"* -- God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {sigh}
Click to expand...


A profound response...for a loon


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I'm not denying that you're fully capable of murdering human beings, that was never in question. That's like demanding that I prove you can't sit on your couch, or twiddle your thumbs, when neither one of those were ever the subject I was bringing up. My argument is from ethics, and judging from how your response is, once again, pure egoism, basically "I can murder, therefor I shall", you're not even attempting to justify your position. _
> 
> _You see, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act is unethical. You repeatedly stating that I can't control your body or what's inside of it is entirely a strawman that you're flinging at everyone in order to distract from the fact that the act and advocated actions are completely unethical._
> 
> _So long as you fully understand that you're literally evil, taking away the rights and life of another solely because you are fully capable. Much like how Nazi Germany slaughtered the Jews because they could, much like how French murdered the upper class because they could, etc. _
> 
> _I never expected to change your mind, you don't care what's right or wrong, these posts here are for the lurkers, and those who aren't emotionally attached to their positions, the undecided. I just want to articulate for them exactly what you are. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, I have not pretended to be anything other than what I am. I've not hidden my motives, made false claims, or been disingenuous. I'm pretty sure by now folks in this thread already know exactly what I am.
> 
> The fact that you feel the need to inform everyone about something they can clearly see with their own eyes is indicative of someone who likes to be in everybody's business. That could prove difficult for you in the future.
> 
> Scold me if it makes you feel superior. It's just one more reason why I think to myself 'these people actually think they will EVER gain control over my decisions regarding my body?!' LMAO! You are insane.
> 
> I question your intelligence AND your ethics if you think you have license over another person's body and what is inside of it.
> 
> NO.
Click to expand...

I think you goofed up you post. Fix it.


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> Breaking God's laws carries a much stiffer penalty



Perhaps you should worry about your own self?


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I'm not denying that you're fully capable of murdering human beings, that was never in question. That's like demanding that I prove you can't sit on your couch, or twiddle your thumbs, when neither one of those were ever the subject I was bringing up. My argument is from ethics, and judging from how your response is, once again, pure egoism, basically "I can murder, therefor I shall", you're not even attempting to justify your position. _
> 
> _You see, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act is unethical. You repeatedly stating that I can't control your body or what's inside of it is entirely a strawman that you're flinging at everyone in order to distract from the fact that the act and advocated actions are completely unethical._
> 
> _So long as you fully understand that you're literally evil, taking away the rights and life of another solely because you are fully capable. Much like how Nazi Germany slaughtered the Jews because they could, much like how French murdered the upper class because they could, etc. _
> 
> _I never expected to change your mind, you don't care what's right or wrong, these posts here are for the lurkers, and those who aren't emotionally attached to their positions, the undecided. I just want to articulate for them exactly what you are. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, I have not pretended to be anything other than what I am. I've not hidden my motives, made false claims, or been disingenuous. I'm pretty sure by now folks in this thread already know exactly what I am.
> 
> The fact that you feel the need to inform everyone about something they can clearly see with their own eyes is indicative of someone who likes to be in everybody's business. That could prove difficult for you in the future.
> 
> Scold me if it makes you feel superior. It's just one more reason why I think to myself 'these people actually think they will EVER gain control over my decisions regarding my body?!' LMAO! You are insane.
> 
> I question your intelligence AND your ethics if you think you have license over another person's body and what is inside of it.
> 
> NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you goofed up you post. Fix it.
Click to expand...

It's fixed! I went as fast as I could! You guys in here are super uptight, lol.

I'm new here. But don't tell the sock people. They have their own narrative and I don't want to spoil it for them. I will try to do better.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
Click to expand...


Uh-oh, more people in abortion murder jail.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I'm not denying that you're fully capable of murdering human beings, that was never in question. That's like demanding that I prove you can't sit on your couch, or twiddle your thumbs, when neither one of those were ever the subject I was bringing up. My argument is from ethics, and judging from how your response is, once again, pure egoism, basically "I can murder, therefor I shall", you're not even attempting to justify your position. _
> 
> _You see, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act is unethical. You repeatedly stating that I can't control your body or what's inside of it is entirely a strawman that you're flinging at everyone in order to distract from the fact that the act and advocated actions are completely unethical._
> 
> _So long as you fully understand that you're literally evil, taking away the rights and life of another solely because you are fully capable. Much like how Nazi Germany slaughtered the Jews because they could, much like how French murdered the upper class because they could, etc. _
> 
> _I never expected to change your mind, you don't care what's right or wrong, these posts here are for the lurkers, and those who aren't emotionally attached to their positions, the undecided. I just want to articulate for them exactly what you are. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, I have not pretended to be anything other than what I am. I've not hidden my motives, made false claims, or been disingenuous. I'm pretty sure by now folks in this thread already know exactly what I am.
> 
> The fact that you feel the need to inform everyone about something they can clearly see with their own eyes is indicative of someone who likes to be in everybody's business. That could prove difficult for you in the future.
> 
> Scold me if it makes you feel superior. It's just one more reason why I think to myself 'these people actually think they will EVER gain control over my decisions regarding my body?!' LMAO! You are insane.
> 
> I question your intelligence AND your ethics if you think you have license over another person's body and what is inside of it.
> 
> NO.
Click to expand...

_Dude, bro, compadre, amigo, not pretending to be something else doesn't automatically make anything you advocate for or do suddenly ethical. You don't need to make false claims, or be disingenuous, or hide your motives, for me to choose to better articulate them than you can. Better articulating your positions, regardless of whether those veteran posters understand, can still create a better understanding among others. _

_Actually, the fact that I feel the need to better articulate something that any number of people already understand, not only actually indicates that I'm waiting for things to build in Warframe, but also shows that I'm ready and willing to exchange ideas with someone who fully understands they're a monster, as well as articulate that fact clearly to anyone who is not fully aware of this. Every individual person articulates things differently, and I see no negative effect to adding my voice to the discussion, especially given that so few people choose to bring up ethics, they instead appeal to popularity or authority, as most people in this thread have been._

_I don't have to scold you to feel superior, I don't advocate murder of the innocent, I therefor AM superior in terms of ethical standing. If you truly disagree, you'd have attempted to make an ethical argument for murdering an innocent individual in cold blood, something you'd neglected to do in favor of restating your egoist position on the subject. Naturally, if you had an argument, you'd have made it instead of repeatedly stating that I can't physically stop you._

_I question your English comprehension skills,since you've once again made the same claim I've already refuted in every single post. I have not once stated that you are physically incapable of murder, nor have I stated that I'm capable of preventing it; I have clearly indicated that my argument is that the action is unethical. The fact that you must continue restating your strawman indicates that you have no argument against mine, that your reading comprehension is abysmal, or that you are not bothering to read my posts. The last idea is pretty likely, since you've replied to everyone a similar way, regardless of their argument. You wouldn't happen to be a bot, would you?_

_If you question my ethics, by all means, feel free to make a case for the murder of an innocent person. I'll humor you._


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I'm not denying that you're fully capable of murdering human beings, that was never in question. That's like demanding that I prove you can't sit on your couch, or twiddle your thumbs, when neither one of those were ever the subject I was bringing up. My argument is from ethics, and judging from how your response is, once again, pure egoism, basically "I can murder, therefor I shall", you're not even attempting to justify your position. _
> 
> _You see, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act is unethical. You repeatedly stating that I can't control your body or what's inside of it is entirely a strawman that you're flinging at everyone in order to distract from the fact that the act and advocated actions are completely unethical._
> 
> _So long as you fully understand that you're literally evil, taking away the rights and life of another solely because you are fully capable. Much like how Nazi Germany slaughtered the Jews because they could, much like how French murdered the upper class because they could, etc. _
> 
> _I never expected to change your mind, you don't care what's right or wrong, these posts here are for the lurkers, and those who aren't emotionally attached to their positions, the undecided. I just want to articulate for them exactly what you are. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, I have not pretended to be anything other than what I am. I've not hidden my motives, made false claims, or been disingenuous. I'm pretty sure by now folks in this thread already know exactly what I am.
> 
> The fact that you feel the need to inform everyone about something they can clearly see with their own eyes is indicative of someone who likes to be in everybody's business. That could prove difficult for you in the future.
> 
> Scold me if it makes you feel superior. It's just one more reason why I think to myself 'these people actually think they will EVER gain control over my decisions regarding my body?!' LMAO! You are insane.
> 
> I question your intelligence AND your ethics if you think you have license over another person's body and what is inside of it.
> 
> NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Dude, bro, compadre, amigo, not pretending to be something else doesn't automatically make anything you advocate for or do suddenly ethical. You don't need to make false claims, or be disingenuous, or hide your motives, for me to choose to better articulate them than you can. Better articulating your positions, regardless of whether those veteran posters understand, can still create a better understanding among others. _
> 
> _Actually, the fact that I feel the need to better articulate something that any number of people already understand, not only actually indicates that I'm waiting for things to build in Warframe, but also shows that I'm ready and willing to exchange ideas with someone who fully understands they're a monster, as well as articulate that fact clearly to anyone who is not fully aware of this. Every individual person articulates things differently, and I see no negative effect to adding my voice to the discussion, especially given that so few people choose to bring up ethics, they instead appeal to popularity or authority, as most people in this thread have been._
> 
> _I don't have to scold you to feel superior, I don't advocate murder of the innocent, I therefor AM superior in terms of ethical standing. If you truly disagree, you'd have attempted to make an ethical argument for murdering an innocent individual in cold blood, something you'd neglected to do in favor of restating your egoist position on the subject. Naturally, if you had an argument, you'd have made it instead of repeatedly stating that I can't physically stop you._
> 
> _I question your English comprehension skills,since you've once again made the same claim I've already refuted in every single post. I have not once stated that you are physically incapable of murder, nor have I stated that I'm capable of preventing it; I have clearly indicated that my argument is that the action is unethical. The fact that you must continue restating your strawman indicates that you have no argument against mine, that your reading comprehension is abysmal, or that you are not bothering to read my posts. The last idea is pretty likely, since you've replied to everyone a similar way, regardless of their argument. You wouldn't happen to be a bot, would you?_
> 
> _If you question my ethics, by all means, feel free to make a case for the murder of an innocent person. I'll humor you._
Click to expand...


Well, what I like is your humility!


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I'm not denying that you're fully capable of murdering human beings, that was never in question. That's like demanding that I prove you can't sit on your couch, or twiddle your thumbs, when neither one of those were ever the subject I was bringing up. My argument is from ethics, and judging from how your response is, once again, pure egoism, basically "I can murder, therefor I shall", you're not even attempting to justify your position. _
> 
> _You see, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act is unethical. You repeatedly stating that I can't control your body or what's inside of it is entirely a strawman that you're flinging at everyone in order to distract from the fact that the act and advocated actions are completely unethical._
> 
> _So long as you fully understand that you're literally evil, taking away the rights and life of another solely because you are fully capable. Much like how Nazi Germany slaughtered the Jews because they could, much like how French murdered the upper class because they could, etc. _
> 
> _I never expected to change your mind, you don't care what's right or wrong, these posts here are for the lurkers, and those who aren't emotionally attached to their positions, the undecided. I just want to articulate for them exactly what you are. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, I have not pretended to be anything other than what I am. I've not hidden my motives, made false claims, or been disingenuous. I'm pretty sure by now folks in this thread already know exactly what I am.
> 
> The fact that you feel the need to inform everyone about something they can clearly see with their own eyes is indicative of someone who likes to be in everybody's business. That could prove difficult for you in the future.
> 
> Scold me if it makes you feel superior. It's just one more reason why I think to myself 'these people actually think they will EVER gain control over my decisions regarding my body?!' LMAO! You are insane.
> 
> I question your intelligence AND your ethics if you think you have license over another person's body and what is inside of it.
> 
> NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Dude, bro, compadre, amigo, not pretending to be something else doesn't automatically make anything you advocate for or do suddenly ethical. You don't need to make false claims, or be disingenuous, or hide your motives, for me to choose to better articulate them than you can. Better articulating your positions, regardless of whether those veteran posters understand, can still create a better understanding among others. _
> 
> _Actually, the fact that I feel the need to better articulate something that any number of people already understand, not only actually indicates that I'm waiting for things to build in Warframe, but also shows that I'm ready and willing to exchange ideas with someone who fully understands they're a monster, as well as articulate that fact clearly to anyone who is not fully aware of this. Every individual person articulates things differently, and I see no negative effect to adding my voice to the discussion, especially given that so few people choose to bring up ethics, they instead appeal to popularity or authority, as most people in this thread have been._
> 
> _I don't have to scold you to feel superior, I don't advocate murder of the innocent, I therefor AM superior in terms of ethical standing. If you truly disagree, you'd have attempted to make an ethical argument for murdering an innocent individual in cold blood, something you'd neglected to do in favor of restating your egoist position on the subject. Naturally, if you had an argument, you'd have made it instead of repeatedly stating that I can't physically stop you._
> 
> _I question your English comprehension skills,since you've once again made the same claim I've already refuted in every single post. I have not once stated that you are physically incapable of murder, nor have I stated that I'm capable of preventing it; I have clearly indicated that my argument is that the action is unethical. The fact that you must continue restating your strawman indicates that you have no argument against mine, that your reading comprehension is abysmal, or that you are not bothering to read my posts. The last idea is pretty likely, since you've replied to everyone a similar way, regardless of their argument. You wouldn't happen to be a bot, would you?_
> 
> _If you question my ethics, by all means, feel free to make a case for the murder of an innocent person. I'll humor you._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, what I like is your humility!
Click to expand...

_I like my humility, too._


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I'm not denying that you're fully capable of murdering human beings, that was never in question. That's like demanding that I prove you can't sit on your couch, or twiddle your thumbs, when neither one of those were ever the subject I was bringing up. My argument is from ethics, and judging from how your response is, once again, pure egoism, basically "I can murder, therefor I shall", you're not even attempting to justify your position. _
> 
> _You see, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act is unethical. You repeatedly stating that I can't control your body or what's inside of it is entirely a strawman that you're flinging at everyone in order to distract from the fact that the act and advocated actions are completely unethical._
> 
> _So long as you fully understand that you're literally evil, taking away the rights and life of another solely because you are fully capable. Much like how Nazi Germany slaughtered the Jews because they could, much like how French murdered the upper class because they could, etc. _
> 
> _I never expected to change your mind, you don't care what's right or wrong, these posts here are for the lurkers, and those who aren't emotionally attached to their positions, the undecided. I just want to articulate for them exactly what you are. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, I have not pretended to be anything other than what I am. I've not hidden my motives, made false claims, or been disingenuous. I'm pretty sure by now folks in this thread already know exactly what I am.
> 
> The fact that you feel the need to inform everyone about something they can clearly see with their own eyes is indicative of someone who likes to be in everybody's business. That could prove difficult for you in the future.
> 
> Scold me if it makes you feel superior. It's just one more reason why I think to myself 'these people actually think they will EVER gain control over my decisions regarding my body?!' LMAO! You are insane.
> 
> I question your intelligence AND your ethics if you think you have license over another person's body and what is inside of it.
> 
> NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Dude, bro, compadre, amigo, not pretending to be something else doesn't automatically make anything you advocate for or do suddenly ethical. You don't need to make false claims, or be disingenuous, or hide your motives, for me to choose to better articulate them than you can. Better articulating your positions, regardless of whether those veteran posters understand, can still create a better understanding among others. _
> 
> _Actually, the fact that I feel the need to better articulate something that any number of people already understand, not only actually indicates that I'm waiting for things to build in Warframe, but also shows that I'm ready and willing to exchange ideas with someone who fully understands they're a monster, as well as articulate that fact clearly to anyone who is not fully aware of this. Every individual person articulates things differently, and I see no negative effect to adding my voice to the discussion, especially given that so few people choose to bring up ethics, they instead appeal to popularity or authority, as most people in this thread have been._
> 
> _I don't have to scold you to feel superior, I don't advocate murder of the innocent, I therefor AM superior in terms of ethical standing. If you truly disagree, you'd have attempted to make an ethical argument for murdering an innocent individual in cold blood, something you'd neglected to do in favor of restating your egoist position on the subject. Naturally, if you had an argument, you'd have made it instead of repeatedly stating that I can't physically stop you._
> 
> _I question your English comprehension skills,since you've once again made the same claim I've already refuted in every single post. I have not once stated that you are physically incapable of murder, nor have I stated that I'm capable of preventing it; I have clearly indicated that my argument is that the action is unethical. The fact that you must continue restating your strawman indicates that you have no argument against mine, that your reading comprehension is abysmal, or that you are not bothering to read my posts. The last idea is pretty likely, since you've replied to everyone a similar way, regardless of their argument. You wouldn't happen to be a bot, would you?_
> 
> _If you question my ethics, by all means, feel free to make a case for the murder of an innocent person. I'll humor you._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, what I like is your humility!
Click to expand...


Trump has the most humility. Humblest of all time. Just ask him.


----------



## NotYourBody

Pumpkin Row said:


> _Dude, bro, compadre, amigo, not pretending to be something else doesn't automatically make anything you advocate for or do suddenly ethical. You don't need to make false claims, or be disingenuous, or hide your motives, for me to choose to better articulate them than you can. Better articulating your positions, regardless of whether those veteran posters understand, can still create a better understanding among others. _
> 
> _Actually, the fact that I feel the need to better articulate something that any number of people already understand, not only actually indicates that I'm waiting for things to build in Warframe, but also shows that I'm ready and willing to exchange ideas with someone who fully understands they're a monster, as well as articulate that fact clearly to anyone who is not fully aware of this. Every individual person articulates things differently, and I see no negative effect to adding my voice to the discussion, especially given that so few people choose to bring up ethics, they instead appeal to popularity or authority, as most people in this thread have been._
> 
> _I don't have to scold you to feel superior, I don't advocate murder of the innocent, I therefor AM superior in terms of ethical standing. If you truly disagree, you'd have attempted to make an ethical argument for murdering an innocent individual in cold blood, something you'd neglected to do in favor of restating your egoist position on the subject. Naturally, if you had an argument, you'd have made it instead of repeatedly stating that I can't physically stop you._
> 
> _I question your English comprehension skills,since you've once again made the same claim I've already refuted in every single post. I have not once stated that you are physically incapable of murder, nor have I stated that I'm capable of preventing it; I have clearly indicated that my argument is that the action is unethical. The fact that you must continue restating your strawman indicates that you have no argument against mine, that your reading comprehension is abysmal, or that you are not bothering to read my posts. The last idea is pretty likely, since you've replied to everyone a similar way, regardless of their argument. You wouldn't happen to be a bot, would you?_
> 
> _If you question my ethics, by all means, feel free to make a case for the murder of an innocent person. I'll humor you._



Well to be honest, I don't really care that much about your ethics. They have nothing to do with me. I am not required to argue against YOUR priorities, values, morality or anything else. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I'm fighting against those who want to control my body and what is inside of it. That is my talking point. If you are not trying to do that, then we have no problem.

You need to find someone interested in your arguments and debate those arguments with that person. Not me.

I have no problem with your judgements. I don't know you. You don't know me. You mean nothing to me. Judge away. I'll try not to let it destroy me. Maybe it makes you feel better about your lack of control?

In fact, your need for control and moral superiority is so great, you claim that you can better state my position than I can state it myself.
And if you don't do that, folks may not be able to fully understand what I've said. W.T.F??!! I wonder what these folks would do without you to explain it all for them?!

You should really concentrate on your own actions and stop worrying so much about the actions you cannot control.


----------



## captkaos

Flash said:


> There is no rational justification for abortion.  None, nada.
> 
> "My body" is the weakest justification the filthy Moon Bats use for the killing of children for the sake of convenience.



They can continue to believe their "Moon bat shit" because they have a fearless leader in Nancy Pelosi ! The Pope dude has said that "Abortion is against the tenets of the Catholic church"! Nancy Said on live television that "She is a devout Catholic and has been all her life" However she "devoutly" supportive of Abortion in any sense of the word. Which makes her a "devout hypocrite" and a disgrace to her alleged devotion to her "Catholicism" …….. Pitiful liar!    Can one  be Catholic and Pro abortion? It doesn't work like that does it! Sorry Nancy "Ex-communication is in order for you!. Hey! He's your Pope not mine!  I don't need someone else to tell me murder is wrong.


----------



## dblack

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-oh, more people in abortion murder jail.
Click to expand...


They're not going to be jails. They are re-education camps. More like a retreat.


----------



## NotYourBody

dblack said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-oh, more people in abortion murder jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not going to be jails. They are re-education camps. More like a retreat.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Details please.


----------



## dblack

NotYourBody said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-oh, more people in abortion murder jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not going to be jails. They are re-education camps. More like a retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. Details please.
Click to expand...


I dunno. I've been asking beagle, who was saying we wouldn't need jails - that instead the state would lead an indoctrination program to teach women the error of their ways. But I haven't heard anything concrete just yet.


----------



## captkaos

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.
> 
> If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being schooled by a 17 year old and too stupid to realize it. Everyone one of your posts is the same shit reworded. Don't breed...for the sake of the child, humanity and society.
> 
> As for debate? Pumpkin would crush your stupid ass like a grape. Run along now, you're exposed and won't be taken serious by the regs on the forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is usually what happens when folks like you realize you actually CAN'T stop a woman from having an abortion.
> 
> Folks get defensive and upset, name call, rant and rave, carrying on like a hyena railing against their inability to force a woman NOT to abort a baby.
> 
> And you still don't win. But Pumpkin is welcome to keep trying, lol.
Click to expand...


So at what point should a woman not be allowed to end her Childs life! Should the right extend beyond the womb? At what point would you consider it the illegal taking of life? I looking to see how you justify your position! "Because I can" seems to be your answer so far are you that shallow? Just wondering?


----------



## NotYourBody

captkaos said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.
> 
> If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being schooled by a 17 year old and too stupid to realize it. Everyone one of your posts is the same shit reworded. Don't breed...for the sake of the child, humanity and society.
> 
> As for debate? Pumpkin would crush your stupid ass like a grape. Run along now, you're exposed and won't be taken serious by the regs on the forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is usually what happens when folks like you realize you actually CAN'T stop a woman from having an abortion.
> 
> Folks get defensive and upset, name call, rant and rave, carrying on like a hyena railing against their inability to force a woman NOT to abort a baby.
> 
> And you still don't win. But Pumpkin is welcome to keep trying, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So at what point should a woman not be allowed to end her Childs life! Should the right extend beyond the womb? At what point would you consider it the illegal taking of life? I looking to see how you justify your position! "Because I can" seems to be your answer so far are you that shallow? Just wondering?
Click to expand...


My position is any late term abortion is between a woman and her doctor. Late term abortion is exceedingly rare. I trust a women and her doctor to make the correct decision.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Dude, bro, compadre, amigo, not pretending to be something else doesn't automatically make anything you advocate for or do suddenly ethical. You don't need to make false claims, or be disingenuous, or hide your motives, for me to choose to better articulate them than you can. Better articulating your positions, regardless of whether those veteran posters understand, can still create a better understanding among others. _
> 
> _Actually, the fact that I feel the need to better articulate something that any number of people already understand, not only actually indicates that I'm waiting for things to build in Warframe, but also shows that I'm ready and willing to exchange ideas with someone who fully understands they're a monster, as well as articulate that fact clearly to anyone who is not fully aware of this. Every individual person articulates things differently, and I see no negative effect to adding my voice to the discussion, especially given that so few people choose to bring up ethics, they instead appeal to popularity or authority, as most people in this thread have been._
> 
> _I don't have to scold you to feel superior, I don't advocate murder of the innocent, I therefor AM superior in terms of ethical standing. If you truly disagree, you'd have attempted to make an ethical argument for murdering an innocent individual in cold blood, something you'd neglected to do in favor of restating your egoist position on the subject. Naturally, if you had an argument, you'd have made it instead of repeatedly stating that I can't physically stop you._
> 
> _I question your English comprehension skills,since you've once again made the same claim I've already refuted in every single post. I have not once stated that you are physically incapable of murder, nor have I stated that I'm capable of preventing it; I have clearly indicated that my argument is that the action is unethical. The fact that you must continue restating your strawman indicates that you have no argument against mine, that your reading comprehension is abysmal, or that you are not bothering to read my posts. The last idea is pretty likely, since you've replied to everyone a similar way, regardless of their argument. You wouldn't happen to be a bot, would you?_
> 
> _If you question my ethics, by all means, feel free to make a case for the murder of an innocent person. I'll humor you._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be honest, I don't really care that much about your ethics. They have nothing to do with me. I am not required to argue against YOUR priorities, values, morality or anything else! Why is that so hard for you to understand? I'm fighting against those who want to control my body and what is inside of it. That is my talking point. If you are not trying to do that, then we have no problem.
> 
> You need to find someone interested in your arguments and debate those arguments with that person. Not me.
> 
> I have no problem with your judgements. I don't know you. You don't know me. You mean nothing to me. Judge away. I'll try not to let it destroy me. Maybe it makes you feel better about your lack of control?
> 
> In fact, your need for control and moral superiority is so great, you claim that you can better state my position than I can state it myself.
> And if you don't do that, folks may not be able to fully understand what I've said. W.T.F??!! I wonder what these folks would do without you to explain it all for them?!
> 
> You should really concentrate on your own actions and stop worrying so much about the actions you cannot control.
Click to expand...

_Ethics are objective and consistent. The reason you've failed to make any argument against "My ethics" is because arguing that murdering an innocent person is ethical means that anyone and everyone can be killed, and it's fully legitimate. That's why I referred to what you're stating as "Egoism", it's the belief that all that matters is a person's ego, and that everything else is a spook. Pointing out that the human being you desire to murder, or support murdering, is a self-owning agent with rights of its own, is not an attempt to force control over you. Your hostility towards this fact is merely a result of your inability to argue against it._

_Once again, I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm interested in presenting an argument that you can't refute, for the audience. The fact that you don't care about ethics, or the rights of others, doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against you, in fact, it only makes me want to make an example of you even more. _

_Lack of control? I made the conscious decision to come here and reply to your post, and have no desire to prevent myself from doing so. This isn't a matter of a lack of self control, nor wanting to present my "judgment" to you. It's a matter of desiring to present objective ethics to an audience, and show what I've shown numerous other times before; That your position is inconsistent, fallacious, and unethical._

_Of course I can. I can present your position clearly, while you merely state "I can murder people and you can't stop me!", so in your case, the bar is pretty low for presenting your position. It's not hard to articulate that; The belief is that your rights take priority over others, and that compared to your desires, human life is inconsequential. In fact, that may be too well-articulated, since I highly doubt you've even brought your position to its logical conclusion. _

_The fact is that I don't "need" moral superiority, I just know that I have a better understanding of ethics than you do, so I never have a fear of losing any argument to someone like you. People like you are like toys, and debate is like my playground. Your arguments, and the arguments of people like you are so weak and flawed, that I could do this while splitting my attention between several other tasks. Right now, I'm playing Moekuri, reading Storm of Swords, and typing this post._

_Hmm. What would they do without me to explain it to them? Probably not consider the ethical implications of your arguments. Deontological Ethics aren't exactly known to everyone, most people probably think that ethics are dependent on geographical location, because they rarely think for themselves._

_If you didn't want your actions and lack of ethics to be scrutinized on a forum, you wouldn't be here. Then again, I doubt you even considered that, given how shallow your positions seem to be in the first place. You know, what you've presented so far. Your username even focuses on this one subject, as if murdering innocent human beings is the most important thing to you. Anyone else, I'd suggest is trying really hard not to consider the possibility that they're a monster, but you don't seem bothered by that fact whatsoever, you're busy flinging refuted strawmen over and over._


----------



## buttercup

captkaos said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.
> 
> If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being schooled by a 17 year old and too stupid to realize it. Everyone one of your posts is the same shit reworded. Don't breed...for the sake of the child, humanity and society.
> 
> As for debate? Pumpkin would crush your stupid ass like a grape. Run along now, you're exposed and won't be taken serious by the regs on the forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is usually what happens when folks like you realize you actually CAN'T stop a woman from having an abortion.
> 
> Folks get defensive and upset, name call, rant and rave, carrying on like a hyena railing against their inability to force a woman NOT to abort a baby.
> 
> And you still don't win. But Pumpkin is welcome to keep trying, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So at what point should a woman not be allowed to end her Childs life! Should the right extend beyond the womb? At what point would you consider it the illegal taking of life? I looking to see how you justify your position! "Because I can" seems to be your answer so far are you that shallow? Just wondering?
Click to expand...


She hasn't and apparently can't justify her position.  If she was logically consistent and intellectually honest, she would concede that by her logic there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term preborn baby just minutes away from delivery, simply because he's still in the mother's body (my body my choice!)  But she won't admit that, so she avoided that question, numerous times.      Since I gave her tons of opportunities to deny she supports infanticide, and she won't, I'm just going to assume she supports it.  Which all sane people know is as heinous and evil as it gets.  

But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.


----------



## Dana7360

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is the killing of another human being.
> 98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
> Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
> The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
> There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
> Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.
> 
> 
> At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.
> 
> Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.
> 
> 
> Here's what Virginia [*Democrat*] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then *a discussion would ensue* between the physicians and mother.”
> 
> 
> So, according to [*Democrat*] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is *a matter for “discussion.” *Precious moments slip by as *the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table*, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
Click to expand...




It may be based on someone's religion but it's not based on anything that comes from the christian bible.

The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. It's right there in the book of genesis. However, like the constitution. these people have never read the bible.

If life begins at conception then they need to explain ectopic pregnancy. There is no life in that fertilized egg and never will be. The only results from an ectopic pregnancy is either the woman dies or she has an abortion.


----------



## Flopper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
Click to expand...

I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion.  The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.
> 
> If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.
> 
> Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being schooled by a 17 year old and too stupid to realize it. Everyone one of your posts is the same shit reworded. Don't breed...for the sake of the child, humanity and society.
> 
> As for debate? Pumpkin would crush your stupid ass like a grape. Run along now, you're exposed and won't be taken serious by the regs on the forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is usually what happens when folks like you realize you actually CAN'T stop a woman from having an abortion.
> 
> Folks get defensive and upset, name call, rant and rave, carrying on like a hyena railing against their inability to force a woman NOT to abort a baby.
> 
> And you still don't win. But Pumpkin is welcome to keep trying, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So at what point should a woman not be allowed to end her Childs life! Should the right extend beyond the womb? At what point would you consider it the illegal taking of life? I looking to see how you justify your position! "Because I can" seems to be your answer so far are you that shallow? Just wondering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My position is any late term abortion is between a woman and her doctor. Late term abortion is exceedingly rare. I trust a women and her doctor to make the correct decision.
Click to expand...


Aha.  Now a little truth is starting to come out.  Without directly stating it, it appears that you "trust" that a woman and her doctor would make the right decision... which implies that in some cases, it may not be right.   Or am I misrepresenting your view? In other words, do you think it's right in ANY circumstance?  Do you think it would be right to kill a full-term, kicking preborn baby who is just minutes away from delivery, for no reason except that the mother wanted to kill him and he was still inside her? My body my choice, remember?    Let's see if you have the intellectual honesty and courage to stand by your sole 'argument.'


----------



## Leo123

Flopper said:


> I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion. * The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. *Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children to care for.



Or not.....


----------



## NotYourBody

Pumpkin Row said:


> _Ethics are objective and consistent. The reason you've failed to make any argument against "My ethics" is because arguing that murdering an innocent person is ethical means that anyone and everyone can be killed, and it's fully legitimate. That's why I referred to what you're stating as "Egoism", it's the belief that all that matters is a person's ego, and that everything else is a spook. Pointing out that the human being you desire to murder, or support murdering, is a self-owning agent with rights of its own, is not an attempt to force control over you. Your hostility towards this fact is merely a result of your inability to argue against it._
> 
> _Once again, I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm interested in presenting an argument that you can't refute, for the audience. The fact that you don't care about ethics, or the rights of others, doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against you, in fact, it only makes me want to make an example of you even more. _
> 
> _Lack of control? I made the conscious decision to come here and reply to your post, and have no desire to prevent myself from doing so. This isn't a matter of a lack of self control, nor wanting to present my "judgment" to you. It's a matter of desiring to present objective ethics to an audience, and show what I've shown numerous other times before; That your position is inconsistent, fallacious, and unethical._
> 
> _Of course I can. I can present your position clearly, while you merely state "I can murder people and you can't stop me!", so in your case, the bar is pretty low for presenting your position. It's not hard to articulate that; The belief is that your rights take priority over others, and that compared to your desires, human life is inconsequential. In fact, that may be too well-articulated, since I highly doubt you've even brought your position to its logical conclusion. _
> 
> _The fact is that I don't "need" moral superiority, I just know that I have a better understanding of ethics than you do, so I never have a fear of losing any argument to someone like you. People like you are like toys, and debate is like my playground. Your arguments, and the arguments of people like you are so weak and flawed, that I could do this while splitting my attention between several other tasks. Right now, I'm playing Moekuri, reading Storm of Swords, and typing this post._
> 
> _Hmm. What would they do without me to explain it to them? Probably not consider the ethical implications of your arguments. Deontological Ethics aren't exactly known to everyone, most people probably think that ethics are dependent on geographical location, because they rarely think for themselves._
> 
> _If you didn't want your actions and lack of ethics to be scrutinized on a forum, you wouldn't be here. Then again, I doubt you even considered that, given how shallow your positions seem to be in the first place. You know, what you've presented so far. Your username even focuses on this one subject, as if murdering innocent human beings is the most important thing to you. Anyone else, I'd suggest is trying really hard not to consider the possibility that they're a monster, but you don't seem bothered by that fact whatsoever, you're busy flinging refuted strawmen over and over._



No. 

I will not let you drag me into an argument that I just do not care about. If you are not after control of my body or what is inside of it, we have no problem. 

I don't care about anything else you said because it's not relevant to my life. 

Reality = control of my body is my own. If you want to argue that, I'm all in.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Ethics are objective and consistent. The reason you've failed to make any argument against "My ethics" is because arguing that murdering an innocent person is ethical means that anyone and everyone can be killed, and it's fully legitimate. That's why I referred to what you're stating as "Egoism", it's the belief that all that matters is a person's ego, and that everything else is a spook. Pointing out that the human being you desire to murder, or support murdering, is a self-owning agent with rights of its own, is not an attempt to force control over you. Your hostility towards this fact is merely a result of your inability to argue against it._
> 
> _Once again, I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm interested in presenting an argument that you can't refute, for the audience. The fact that you don't care about ethics, or the rights of others, doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against you, in fact, it only makes me want to make an example of you even more. _
> 
> _Lack of control? I made the conscious decision to come here and reply to your post, and have no desire to prevent myself from doing so. This isn't a matter of a lack of self control, nor wanting to present my "judgment" to you. It's a matter of desiring to present objective ethics to an audience, and show what I've shown numerous other times before; That your position is inconsistent, fallacious, and unethical._
> 
> _Of course I can. I can present your position clearly, while you merely state "I can murder people and you can't stop me!", so in your case, the bar is pretty low for presenting your position. It's not hard to articulate that; The belief is that your rights take priority over others, and that compared to your desires, human life is inconsequential. In fact, that may be too well-articulated, since I highly doubt you've even brought your position to its logical conclusion. _
> 
> _The fact is that I don't "need" moral superiority, I just know that I have a better understanding of ethics than you do, so I never have a fear of losing any argument to someone like you. People like you are like toys, and debate is like my playground. Your arguments, and the arguments of people like you are so weak and flawed, that I could do this while splitting my attention between several other tasks. Right now, I'm playing Moekuri, reading Storm of Swords, and typing this post._
> 
> _Hmm. What would they do without me to explain it to them? Probably not consider the ethical implications of your arguments. Deontological Ethics aren't exactly known to everyone, most people probably think that ethics are dependent on geographical location, because they rarely think for themselves._
> 
> _If you didn't want your actions and lack of ethics to be scrutinized on a forum, you wouldn't be here. Then again, I doubt you even considered that, given how shallow your positions seem to be in the first place. You know, what you've presented so far. Your username even focuses on this one subject, as if murdering innocent human beings is the most important thing to you. Anyone else, I'd suggest is trying really hard not to consider the possibility that they're a monster, but you don't seem bothered by that fact whatsoever, you're busy flinging refuted strawmen over and over._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> I will not let you drag me into an argument that I just do not care about. If you are not after control of my body or what is inside of it, we have no problem.
> 
> I don't care about anything else you said because it's not relevant to my life.
> 
> Reality = control of my body is my own. If you want to argue that, I'm all in.
Click to expand...

_You're only refusing to debate because the topic was never control of your body, it was that you're declaring legitimacy in murdering others on the basis of being capable. You're repeatedly stating that strawman of yours because you want to transform the subject into it. _

_This is also why you're ignoring the ethical argument, and merely stating that you can. It's pretty pathetic that you're only here to reiterate that, over and over, as if it's some profound argument, despite leaping over all of the actual ethics involved in the subject matter. In other words, it's anti-thought._


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> She hasn't and apparently can't justify her position.  If she was logically consistent and intellectually honest, she would concede that by her logic there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term preborn baby just minutes away from delivery, simply because he's still in the mother's body (my body my choice!)  But she won't admit that, so she avoided that question, numerous times.      Since I gave her tons of opportunities to deny she supports infanticide, and she won't, I'm just going to assume she supports it.  Which all sane people know is as heinous and evil as it gets.
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.



Correct. I care about control of my own body and what is inside of it. That is my priority. Have I not made that 100% clear?

I'm not going to argue against your priority, lol. You don't even get a seat at the table regarding my body.


----------



## NotYourBody

Dana7360 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be based on someone's religion but it's not based on anything that comes from the christian bible.
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. It's right there in the book of genesis. However, like the constitution. these people have never read the bible.
> 
> If life begins at conception then they need to explain ectopic pregnancy. There is no life in that fertilized egg and never will be. The only results from an ectopic pregnancy is either the woman dies or she has an abortion.
Click to expand...




Pumpkin Row said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Ethics are objective and consistent. The reason you've failed to make any argument against "My ethics" is because arguing that murdering an innocent person is ethical means that anyone and everyone can be killed, and it's fully legitimate. That's why I referred to what you're stating as "Egoism", it's the belief that all that matters is a person's ego, and that everything else is a spook. Pointing out that the human being you desire to murder, or support murdering, is a self-owning agent with rights of its own, is not an attempt to force control over you. Your hostility towards this fact is merely a result of your inability to argue against it._
> 
> _Once again, I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm interested in presenting an argument that you can't refute, for the audience. The fact that you don't care about ethics, or the rights of others, doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against you, in fact, it only makes me want to make an example of you even more. _
> 
> _Lack of control? I made the conscious decision to come here and reply to your post, and have no desire to prevent myself from doing so. This isn't a matter of a lack of self control, nor wanting to present my "judgment" to you. It's a matter of desiring to present objective ethics to an audience, and show what I've shown numerous other times before; That your position is inconsistent, fallacious, and unethical._
> 
> _Of course I can. I can present your position clearly, while you merely state "I can murder people and you can't stop me!", so in your case, the bar is pretty low for presenting your position. It's not hard to articulate that; The belief is that your rights take priority over others, and that compared to your desires, human life is inconsequential. In fact, that may be too well-articulated, since I highly doubt you've even brought your position to its logical conclusion. _
> 
> _The fact is that I don't "need" moral superiority, I just know that I have a better understanding of ethics than you do, so I never have a fear of losing any argument to someone like you. People like you are like toys, and debate is like my playground. Your arguments, and the arguments of people like you are so weak and flawed, that I could do this while splitting my attention between several other tasks. Right now, I'm playing Moekuri, reading Storm of Swords, and typing this post._
> 
> _Hmm. What would they do without me to explain it to them? Probably not consider the ethical implications of your arguments. Deontological Ethics aren't exactly known to everyone, most people probably think that ethics are dependent on geographical location, because they rarely think for themselves._
> 
> _If you didn't want your actions and lack of ethics to be scrutinized on a forum, you wouldn't be here. Then again, I doubt you even considered that, given how shallow your positions seem to be in the first place. You know, what you've presented so far. Your username even focuses on this one subject, as if murdering innocent human beings is the most important thing to you. Anyone else, I'd suggest is trying really hard not to consider the possibility that they're a monster, but you don't seem bothered by that fact whatsoever, you're busy flinging refuted strawmen over and over._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> I will not let you drag me into an argument that I just do not care about. If you are not after control of my body or what is inside of it, we have no problem.
> 
> I don't care about anything else you said because it's not relevant to my life.
> 
> Reality = control of my body is my own. If you want to argue that, I'm all in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You're only refusing to debate because the topic was never control of your body, it was that you're declaring legitimacy in murdering others on the basis of being capable. You're repeatedly stating that strawman of yours because you want to transform the subject into it. _
> 
> _This is also why you're ignoring the ethical argument, and merely stating that you can. It's pretty pathetic that you're only here to reiterate that, over and over, as if it's some profound argument, despite leaping over all of the actual ethics involved in the subject matter. In other words, it's anti-thought._
Click to expand...


I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you. I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.

I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> She hasn't and apparently can't justify her position.  If she was logically consistent and intellectually honest, she would concede that by her logic there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term preborn baby just minutes away from delivery, simply because he's still in the mother's body (my body my choice!)  But she won't admit that, so she avoided that question, numerous times.      Since I gave her tons of opportunities to deny she supports infanticide, and she won't, I'm just going to assume she supports it.  Which all sane people know is as heinous and evil as it gets.
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I care about control of my own body and what is inside of it. That is my priority. Have I not made that 100% clear?
> 
> I'm not going to argue against your priority, lol. You don't even get a seat at the table regarding my body.
Click to expand...


As Pumpkin Row pointed out, you have poor reading skills.  I wasn't arguing against your priority, I just informed the guy who wanted to discuss this with you that you don't care about anything but yourself. And you just admitted I was correct. 

I don't have to argue against selfishness, apathy and a might makes right mindset. All the normal, sane people out there know those are horrible qualities, they aren't proud of them, as you seem to be.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> As Pumpkin Row pointed out, you have poor reading skills.  I wasn't arguing against your priority, I just informed the guy who wanted to discuss this with you that you don't care about anything but yourself. And you just admitted I was correct.
> 
> I don't have to argue against selfishness, apathy and a might makes right mindset. All the normal, sane people out there know those are horrible qualities, they aren't proud of them, as you seem to be.



Oh I see. The folks on here must be some special kind of ignorant if they can't decipher my posts without your and Pumpkin Pie's help.

It's not that complicated.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

RealDave said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since life can’t begin at any point _without _conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great logic.  Not
> 
> Conception can not take place without a sperm.  Therefore, according to you., life begins at sperm production & every time we do not ensure every sperm gets to be part of conception, we are aborting babies.
Click to expand...


Don’t be an idiot. Conception requires sperm but by itself, sperm is not the beginning of life. However, conception is.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

RealDave said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who _Republicans _are going to attack next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What children have the Democrats killed?
Click to expand...


What group of Americans have Republicans attacked?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since life can’t begin at any point _without _conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, not at issue.
> 
> At issue is the wrongheaded notion that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which as a fact of law it does not; an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, where the protected liberty of the woman is paramount.
> 
> Religious dogma or subjective personal belief might hold that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which is perfectly appropriate, where the right to privacy ensures that each citizen is at liberty to practice and express his beliefs.
> 
> But religious dogma or subjective personal belief neither justifies violating a woman’s right to privacy nor justifies the state compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide whether to have a child or not, not the state.
Click to expand...


As I told someone already, I don’t know the answer as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with ending the life of a child but conception is the beginning of the life _process. _Once the _process _begins, personhood is assured at some point whether it’s at conception or not.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since life can’t begin at any point _without _conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did God tell you that? Because if God didn't, you are lying, while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.
Click to expand...


First of all, I’m an atheist. Secondly, if no one knows when life begins then how do you know I’m lying?


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> Aha.  Now a little truth is starting to come out.  Without directly stating it, it appears that you "trust" that a woman and her doctor would make the right decision... which implies that in some cases, it may not be right.   Or am I misrepresenting your view? In other words, do you think it's right in ANY circumstance?  Do you think it would be right to kill a full-term, kicking preborn baby who is just minutes away from delivery, for no reason except that the mother wanted to kill him and he was still inside her? My body my choice, remember?    Let's see if you have the intellectual honesty and courage to stand by your sole 'argument.'



Again, I am not validating YOUR arguments. 

I stated my position on late term abortions. A decision between a woman and her doctor regarding her late term pregnancy is still her decision. No control has been taken away from her. I trust the woman and her doctor to do the right thing. The rest is not my business.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Flopper said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was? Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly hope so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
Click to expand...


It will be if left alone.


----------



## The Purge




----------



## NotYourBody

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be if left alone.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. There are many things that cause the death of a fetus besides abortion.


----------



## The Purge




----------



## NotYourBody

If a man does not know if the woman he is putting his unwrapped penis inside is pro-choice, maybe he should ask first.

Or perhaps he should be more careful where he puts that unwrapped penis.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

NotYourBody said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be if left alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. There are many things that cause the death of a fetus besides abortion.
Click to expand...


Of course there are. But these are facts and contingencies of nature, abortion is not. Abortion is nothing less than the conscious choice to end a life process because the ultimate product of that process is deemed inconvenient for whatever reason.


----------



## The Purge




----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> Again, I am not validating YOUR arguments.
> 
> I stated my position on late term abortions. A decision between a woman and her doctor regarding her late term pregnancy is still her decision. No control has been taken away from her. I trust the woman and her doctor to do the right thing. The rest is not my business.



Hahaha.  I never asked you to validate MY argument, Einstein, I've been asking you to support YOUR own so-called argument. You see, that's what people do in these discussions.  The reasonable people, anyway.

But yeah, I know, you won't answer direct questions, you won't support your own 'argument', you seem oblivious to your numerous logical fallacies, and as Pumpkin said, you're just repeating your same tired stawman over and over and over.   *yawn*  

Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll just assume you _do_ support killing a full-term baby moments away from delivery for no reason at all. In other words, infanticide.  I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer would get along great with you.


----------



## Leo123

I have a question for women....If it's 'your body your choice' then shouldn't you be responsible for your choices?   Pay for your own abortion and/or take care of your own offspring?   Leave the sperm-donor alone.  Outside of criminal rape, it was YOUR choice.


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one of those words you wrote will prevent a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open a newspaper (if you remember what those are).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. If it makes you FEELZ better to pretend abortions are already being prevented, that's fine too.
> 
> Pro-choice women don't care about your feelz or your laws. That's the part you struggle with.
> 
> - You have no way of knowing when a woman is pregnant.
> 
> - A woman can abort a fetus without medical help. She can even do it by herself.
> 
> Until you can change BOTH of these two FACTS, you have no control. Suck for you I guess.
Click to expand...


Sure you care. Look, you created a sock account just to come here and nah nah nah nah boo boo like a child to us about it. Like aborting your child is supposed to show us a thing or two. 

YOU have to live with what YOU did for the rest of your life, in that case.


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I better stay away from the hospital! You still haven't caught me OR stopped me. And the abortion still happened. You failed again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, where did I say that abortions would be 100% prevented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't prevent ANY abortions with pro-choice women. You just think you will.
Click to expand...


You're either very young or not too bright. Possibly both.


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aha.  Now a little truth is starting to come out.  Without directly stating it, it appears that you "trust" that a woman and her doctor would make the right decision... which implies that in some cases, it may not be right.   Or am I misrepresenting your view? In other words, do you think it's right in ANY circumstance?  Do you think it would be right to kill a full-term, kicking preborn baby who is just minutes away from delivery, for no reason except that the mother wanted to kill him and he was still inside her? My body my choice, remember?    Let's see if you have the intellectual honesty and courage to stand by your sole 'argument.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am not validating YOUR arguments.
> 
> I stated my position on late term abortions. A decision between a woman and her doctor regarding her late term pregnancy is still her decision. No control has been taken away from her. I trust the woman and her doctor to do the right thing. The rest is not my business.
Click to expand...


You have an incredibly juvenile view of this entire situation. When young children are in trouble, they hide. They feel if they cannot be found, they're not in trouble. This is your view of the situation. If people don't know you're pregnant, your so-called "rights" to kill your own baby are not in jeopardy or something. You have spent I don't know how many posts asserting this same point....basically like a kindergartner. Look you can't see the pregnancy, therefore....

Or, it's like you think you're getting away with something because we don't know. Like your abortion will be a point of rebellion for you--ha ha ha conservatives, I killed my baby and you didn't even KNOW. I can't tell you how sick I find that. I don't have the words.

I'm sure this explanation won't penetrate the fog of propaganda surrounding your brain, but here it is: none of this is about who's in trouble, taking away "rights", or even your "body". I could not care LESS about your body. As I said in the OP. Just don't kill your baby, and don't, if you have a brain in your head, even BEGIN to think that your emancipation as a woman begins and ends with your ability to kill all  your children in the womb. I mean what a sick and twisted lie. Honestly.

No one wants to chase you down and find out all your pregnancies or jail you for having an abortion. How about just shutting down the abortion mills for a start. How about just saying as a nation, abortion is illegal here. You know, RATIONAL stuff.


----------



## playtime

the worst thing so called 'pro lifers' say - i say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad....  is when they use the term 'baby'  when referring to a zygote or embryo or a few 'weeks' old gestational fetus is the same as a post born person with a history. 

when a clump of cells & tissue has more value than babies whose cord is cut...& they & their mamas are on their own as far as food, medical care, housing & education or GOD forbid, they are brown & are in cages ready to be sent back to their 3rd word 'shit holes' ,  something is seriously & defectively wrong with their brains.


----------



## SweetSue92

playtime said:


> the worst thing so called 'pro lifers' say - i say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad....  is when they use the term 'baby'  when referring to a zygote or embryo or a few 'weeks' old gestational fetus is the same as a post born person with a history.
> 
> when a clump of cells & tissue has more value than babies whose cord is cut...& they & their mamas are on their own as far as food, medical care, housing & education or GOD forbid, they are brown & are in cages ready to be sent back to their 3rd word 'shit holes' ,  something is seriously & defectively wrong with their brains.



1. A zygote, embryo and fetus are just terms to use for human development, like newborn, toddler, preschooler, pre-teen, teenager. They don't confer designation of worth on a person. 

2. The 70s called, they want their busted "clump of cells" talking point back.

3. No one is saying the baby has MORE value than the mother. But, you do not KILL someone because another finds the life inconvenient or unwanted. This goes without saying in all other facets of life. 

4. You deflect to ranting because you have no other case to make. See above.


----------



## playtime

SweetSue92 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> the worst thing so called 'pro lifers' say - i say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad....  is when they use the term 'baby'  when referring to a zygote or embryo or a few 'weeks' old gestational fetus is the same as a post born person with a history.
> 
> when a clump of cells & tissue has more value than babies whose cord is cut...& they & their mamas are on their own as far as food, medical care, housing & education or GOD forbid, they are brown & are in cages ready to be sent back to their 3rd word 'shit holes' ,  something is seriously & defectively wrong with their brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A zygote, embryo and fetus are just terms to use for human development, like newborn, toddler, preschooler, pre-teen, teenager. They don't confer designation of worth on a person.
> 
> 2. The 70s called, they want their busted "clump of cells" talking point back.
> 
> 3. No one is saying the baby has MORE value than the mother. But, you do not KILL someone because another finds the life inconvenient or unwanted. This goes without saying in all other facets of life.
> 
> 4. You deflect to ranting because you have no other case to make. See above.
Click to expand...


A) rant? LOL!!!!!!!!!!  silly you.  you're the one ranting or you wouldn't have started this thread.

B) a clump of cells is still a clump of cells no matter what you try to change it into.  you wanna legislate so that *personhood* starts at conception.

C) i see you didn't address the issue of what to do with all those forced to term pregnancies once the cord is cut. 

D) now tell me how you want your taxes raised to accommodate all that new precious life & their welfare mamas. 

E) did your god decipher the difference  in 'personhood' in the OT?   start with exodus & then numbers.


----------



## RealDave

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly hope so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be if left alone.
Click to expand...

If left alone, it would not survive


----------



## RealDave

Ghost of a Rider said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> Women
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who _Republicans _are going to attack next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What children have the Democrats killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals
> Transgendered
> Minorities
> Muslims
> 
> Need more?
> 
> What group of Americans have Republicans attacked?
Click to expand...


----------



## Flash

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> She hasn't and apparently can't justify her position.  If she was logically consistent and intellectually honest, she would concede that by her logic there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term preborn baby just minutes away from delivery, simply because he's still in the mother's body (my body my choice!)  But she won't admit that, so she avoided that question, numerous times.      Since I gave her tons of opportunities to deny she supports infanticide, and she won't, I'm just going to assume she supports it.  Which all sane people know is as heinous and evil as it gets.
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I care about control of my own body and what is inside of it. That is my priority. Have I not made that 100% clear?
> 
> I'm not going to argue against your priority, lol. You don't even get a seat at the table regarding my body.
Click to expand...



Your body ends where the child's body begins.  You are only a host.

Your inability to understand that speaks volumes for the ignorance of Liberals about simple Biology.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

RealDave said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly hope so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be if left alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If left alone, it would not survive
Click to expand...


Again, don’t be an idiot.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

RealDave said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.
> 
> Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?
> 
> Will their next attack be directed at:
> 
> Gays
> blacks
> Muslims
> Hispanics
> Women
> 
> We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.
> 
> But what group of Americans will they attack next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who _Republicans _are going to attack next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What children have the Democrats killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals
> Transgendered
> Minorities
> Muslims
> 
> Need more?
> 
> What group of Americans have Republicans attacked?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


More what?


----------



## Death Angel

Dana7360 said:


> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose


Where does it say that?

It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).

A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.

Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.


----------



## playtime

Death Angel said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
Click to expand...


it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.


----------



## SweetSue92

RealDave said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly hope so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be if left alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If left alone, it would not survive
Click to expand...


A close family member would not have survived pneumonia if left alone a few weeks ago, but a few antibiotics and a little oxygen cured it right up. 

Wow, the dumb arguments keep on piling up. This thread could kill your brain cells if your IQ is over 90. WARNING....you've been warned


----------



## SweetSue92

playtime said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
Click to expand...


Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.


----------



## RealDave

SweetSue92 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly hope so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be if left alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If left alone, it would not survive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A close family member would not have survived pneumonia if left alone a few weeks ago, but a few antibiotics and a little oxygen cured it right up.
> 
> Wow, the dumb arguments keep on piling up. This thread could kill your brain cells if your IQ is over 90. WARNING....you've been warned
Click to expand...

 Try following the conversation Ms Brilliant One.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

SweetSue92 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
Click to expand...


It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.

Epic fail everytime


----------



## playtime

SweetSue92 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
Click to expand...


sorry suzy Q...  it says the same in all translations...  even the JW's good book & that is translated as close to the written word as possible.


----------



## SweetSue92

RealDave said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
> 
> I certainly hope so.
> 
> 
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be if left alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If left alone, it would not survive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A close family member would not have survived pneumonia if left alone a few weeks ago, but a few antibiotics and a little oxygen cured it right up.
> 
> Wow, the dumb arguments keep on piling up. This thread could kill your brain cells if your IQ is over 90. WARNING....you've been warned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try following the conversation Ms Brilliant One.
Click to expand...


Thank you, and I did. Your "argument"--such as it is--is that the baby would not survive on its own. Plenty of people would not. Diabetics. People on dialysis. Congestive heart failure patients. People with pacemakers. And on and on and on.

Unless you're into Hitler like tactics. Are you?


----------



## SweetSue92

playtime said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry suzy Q...  it says the same in all translations...  even the JW's good book & that is translated as close to the written word as possible.
Click to expand...


Okay then give me the translation that says "baby", "abortion", "miscarriage" or "pregnancy"


----------



## SweetSue92

SassyIrishLass said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
> 
> Epic fail everytime
Click to expand...


They're so ignorant about it, they think their little bit of knowledge is a mountain. Whereas people who know the Bible better, we know that our little knowledge of the Bible doesn't even scratch the surface. 

It is funny. They're so smug about their thimbleful


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
> 
> Epic fail everytime
Click to expand...


what bible do YOU use 'eh?  KIng James?  doesn't matter -  you can enter any 'version' you want & it all says the same thing.  lol...

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - King James Version


----------



## playtime

SweetSue92 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
> 
> Epic fail everytime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're so ignorant about it, they think their little bit of knowledge is a mountain. Whereas people who know the Bible better, we know that our little knowledge of the Bible doesn't even scratch the surface.
> 
> It is funny. They're so smug about their thimbleful
Click to expand...


pick any version.

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - King James Version

& when you are done, you can tell me about all those taxes you will gladly give up to pay for all them thar post born chill'ins....


----------



## SweetSue92

playtime said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
> 
> Epic fail everytime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what bible do YOU use 'eh?  KIng James?  doesn't matter -  you can enter any 'version' you want & it all says the same thing.  lol...
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - King James Version
Click to expand...


Quote where it says abortion, miscarriage, pregnancy, baby


----------



## playtime

SweetSue92 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
> 
> Epic fail everytime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what bible do YOU use 'eh?  KIng James?  doesn't matter -  you can enter any 'version' you want & it all says the same thing.  lol...
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - King James Version
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote where it says abortion, miscarriage, pregnancy, baby
Click to expand...


oh i see, so now you wanna play semantics huh?

quote me where it doesn't say that the 'priestly' concoction doesn't bring on 'the curse'.

 you should know what that  uniquely female term  'the curse' means in those passages.

then you can 'splain what else it could possibly be.  good luck, suzy Q.


----------



## SweetSue92

playtime said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
> 
> Epic fail everytime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what bible do YOU use 'eh?  KIng James?  doesn't matter -  you can enter any 'version' you want & it all says the same thing.  lol...
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - King James Version
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote where it says abortion, miscarriage, pregnancy, baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh i see, so now you wanna play semantics huh?
> 
> quote me where it doesn't say that the 'priestly' concoction doesn't bring on 'the curse'.
> 
> you should know what that  uniquely female term  'the curse' means in those passages.
> 
> then you can 'splain what else it could possibly be.  good luck, suzy Q.
Click to expand...


It says exactly what it says. Her "belly swells" and her "thigh rots". Possibly some nasty bowel contents--who knows? What it expressly does NOT say, in dozens and dozens of translations, and especially not in the Hebrew, is anything about pregnancy, baby, miscarriage or abortion.

So, if you want to continue down that path, you're just being totally disingenuous.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dana7360 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?
> 
> 
> Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."
> 
> The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be based on someone's religion but it's not based on anything that comes from the christian bible.
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. It's right there in the book of genesis. However, like the constitution. these people have never read the bible.
> 
> If life begins at conception then they need to explain ectopic pregnancy. There is no life in that fertilized egg and never will be. The only results from an ectopic pregnancy is either the woman dies or she has an abortion.
Click to expand...




ectopic pregnancy refers to where the organism anchors, not when it was formed, you dope.
'Ectopic pregnancy is when a pregnancy grows outside of your uterus, usually in your fallopian tube.'
What Is Ectopic Pregnancy? | Definition and Treatment

A separate, unique human being is in existence from the moment the double helix of DNA forms.


you may pin the tail on yourself, donkey.


----------



## playtime

SweetSue92 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
> 
> Epic fail everytime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what bible do YOU use 'eh?  KIng James?  doesn't matter -  you can enter any 'version' you want & it all says the same thing.  lol...
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - King James Version
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote where it says abortion, miscarriage, pregnancy, baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh i see, so now you wanna play semantics huh?
> 
> quote me where it doesn't say that the 'priestly' concoction doesn't bring on 'the curse'.
> 
> you should know what that  uniquely female term  'the curse' means in those passages.
> 
> then you can 'splain what else it could possibly be.  good luck, suzy Q.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says exactly what it says. Her "belly swells" and her "thigh rots". Possibly some nasty bowel contents--who knows? What it expressly does NOT say, in dozens and dozens of translations, and especially not in the Hebrew, is anything about pregnancy, baby, miscarriage or abortion.
> 
> So, if you want to continue down that path, you're just being totally disingenuous.
Click to expand...


uh-huh.  why do women call their periods 'the curse'?  oh & you are trying to pedde that the same god whose edict was to kill all those INNOCENT precious first born kiddies of those that weren't his chosen people would never have his priests do such a dastardly thing as to abort a pre born 'child'?

ya..........  that's the ticket.


----------



## Mac1958

The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_

So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.

And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law

_Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_
> 
> So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
> 
> _Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
> .



So you agree if you condone any abortion you're just as gulity as the murderer doing it?

I'm interested, what's your stance on abortion because if you agree with any part of it you just called yourself a murderer.

This may very well be an epic gotcha moment...unless of course you oppose all abortions


----------



## sparky

Reagan lite....~S~


----------



## Mac1958

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_
> 
> So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
> 
> _Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree if you condone any abortion you're just as gulity as the murderer doing it?
> 
> I'm interested, what's your stance on abortion because if you agree with any part of it you just called yourself a murderer.
> 
> This may very well be an epic gotcha moment...unless of course you oppose all abortions
Click to expand...

As I point out in the link at the end of the second line of my sig, I'm pro choice.  I'd also be open to bans on late term abortion, and I don't like the way most pro choicers approach this topic.

So, again, for clarity, I'm pro choice.
.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_
> 
> So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
> 
> _Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree if you condone any abortion you're just as gulity as the murderer doing it?
> 
> I'm interested, what's your stance on abortion because if you agree with any part of it you just called yourself a murderer.
> 
> This may very well be an epic gotcha moment...unless of course you oppose all abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I point out in the link at the end of the second line of my sig, I'm pro choice.  I'd also be open to bans on late term abortion, and I don't like the way most pro choicers approach this topic.
> 
> So, again, for clarity, I'm pro choice.
> .
Click to expand...


Then according to your post you're a murderer. You called Trump one. Fair is fair but thanks for the honesty

Be careful what you post.


----------



## Mac1958

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_
> 
> So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
> 
> _Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree if you condone any abortion you're just as gulity as the murderer doing it?
> 
> I'm interested, what's your stance on abortion because if you agree with any part of it you just called yourself a murderer.
> 
> This may very well be an epic gotcha moment...unless of course you oppose all abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I point out in the link at the end of the second line of my sig, I'm pro choice.  I'd also be open to bans on late term abortion, and I don't like the way most pro choicers approach this topic.
> 
> So, again, for clarity, I'm pro choice.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then according to your post you're a murderer. You called Trump one. Fair is fair but thanks for the honesty
> 
> Be careful what you post.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm a murderer.  So is Trump.

Call the cops.
.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_
> 
> So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
> 
> _Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree if you condone any abortion you're just as gulity as the murderer doing it?
> 
> I'm interested, what's your stance on abortion because if you agree with any part of it you just called yourself a murderer.
> 
> This may very well be an epic gotcha moment...unless of course you oppose all abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I point out in the link at the end of the second line of my sig, I'm pro choice.  I'd also be open to bans on late term abortion, and I don't like the way most pro choicers approach this topic.
> 
> So, again, for clarity, I'm pro choice.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then according to your post you're a murderer. You called Trump one. Fair is fair but thanks for the honesty
> 
> Be careful what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, I'm a murderer.  So is Trump.
> 
> Call the cops.
> .
Click to expand...


God will sort it out. Bank that one


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> If a man does not know if the woman he is putting his unwrapped penis inside is pro-choice, maybe he should ask first.
> 
> Or perhaps he should be more careful where he puts that unwrapped penis.


I do believe that alot of that is beginning to take place in society. Liberals dating liberals, and conservatives dating conservatives based on ideological and political lines now.


----------



## beagle9

playtime said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> the worst thing so called 'pro lifers' say - i say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad....  is when they use the term 'baby'  when referring to a zygote or embryo or a few 'weeks' old gestational fetus is the same as a post born person with a history.
> 
> when a clump of cells & tissue has more value than babies whose cord is cut...& they & their mamas are on their own as far as food, medical care, housing & education or GOD forbid, they are brown & are in cages ready to be sent back to their 3rd word 'shit holes' ,  something is seriously & defectively wrong with their brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A zygote, embryo and fetus are just terms to use for human development, like newborn, toddler, preschooler, pre-teen, teenager. They don't confer designation of worth on a person.
> 
> 2. The 70s called, they want their busted "clump of cells" talking point back.
> 
> 3. No one is saying the baby has MORE value than the mother. But, you do not KILL someone because another finds the life inconvenient or unwanted. This goes without saying in all other facets of life.
> 
> 4. You deflect to ranting because you have no other case to make. See above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) rant? LOL!!!!!!!!!!  silly you.  you're the one ranting or you wouldn't have started this thread.
> 
> B) a clump of cells is still a clump of cells no matter what you try to change it into.  you wanna legislate so that *personhood* starts at conception.
> 
> C) i see you didn't address the issue of what to do with all those forced to term pregnancies once the cord is cut.
> 
> D) now tell me how you want your taxes raised to accommodate all that new precious life & their welfare mamas.
> 
> E) did your god decipher the difference  in 'personhood' in the OT?   start with exodus & then numbers.
Click to expand...

So your stance is that the world in which the left has created is now unstoppable, and it's highly unaffordable, so it best to stop the added pressures to that world while they are still in the womb ? 

Otherwise to keep balance or to  try and keep balance in leftist world, these things must continue to take place because there is no way out of leftist world now right ?? Trump caused a 7.9 quake to strike in leftist world, and the left went slam crazy afterwards.


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.



No, she's made it clear that she rejects any attempt to make her internal organs state property.


----------



## dblack

SassyIrishLass said:


> God will sort it out. Bank that one



That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.


----------



## Death Angel

SassyIrishLass said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
> 
> Epic fail everytime
Click to expand...

They are desperate. They know Science is against their unethical position so they're grasping at religion to justify their evil.


----------



## Dana7360

Flopper said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion.  The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.
Click to expand...




The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.

Who will raise it?

Who is responsible for such a being?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pumpkin Row said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
Click to expand...

Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’

Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.

The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’

As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.

And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.


----------



## BWK

Leo123 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's definitely a start in the right direction. Even then, it would be best to be triple wrapped if you are concerned about any life you might be creating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries as long as no penis/vagina contact.  Do I need to tell you how many ways a woman can satisfy a man and visa versa?   You know, it may be YOUR body but you are letting sperm into it that has the expressed purpose to fertilize your eggs.  How unwise is that if both of you are not prepared?
Click to expand...

What's it to you? Are you God? If not, then who are you? Who gave you the moral high ground to ask, considering no human knows when life begins? Answer, you don't. But you have no problem in letting your ignorance, arrogance, and religious fanaticism tell others what they should be doing. Shame on you.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
Click to expand...


Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
Click to expand...

This is an example of the dangerous religious extremism and arrogance the right to privacy protects citizens from, by prohibiting such religious extremism and arrogance from being codified into secular law.


----------



## BWK

Leo123 said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will republicans do when the condom breaks??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.
Click to expand...

How is it killing? Did you prove when life begins? I must have missed it on here someplace?


----------



## BWK

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
Click to expand...

And that higher authority knows when life begins. You don't.


----------



## Dragonlady

SweetSue92 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.
> 
> Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all.  That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
> 
> If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.
> 
> *IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> THINK, woman, for pity's sake
Click to expand...


You first.  The woman is living, breathing and fully alive.  According to you, because women can control how many children to have and when, there is no law to protect living people from assault.  

Again, *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE*.  Allowing others to exercise their rights and freedoms according to their beliefs is the Constitutional and American thing to do.  Trying to legally impose your religious beliefs on others, violates the Constitution.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an example of the dangerous religious extremism and arrogance the right to privacy protects citizens from, by prohibiting such religious extremism and arrogance from being codified into secular law.
Click to expand...


Good grief you're stupid


----------



## BWK

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an example of the dangerous religious extremism and arrogance the right to privacy protects citizens from, by prohibiting such religious extremism and arrogance from being codified into secular law.
Click to expand...

We are living in a time that if you were to  put the religious Right in charge, women would all be hands maids, and if you resisted, they'd kill you without thought. And the Constitution be damned;


----------



## SweetSue92

Dragonlady said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
> 
> If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.
> 
> *IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> THINK, woman, for pity's sake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You first.  The woman is living, breathing and fully alive.  According to you, because women can control how many children to have and when, there is no law to protect living people from assault.
> 
> Again, *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE*.  Allowing others to exercise their rights and freedoms according to their beliefs is the Constitutional and American thing to do.  Trying to legally impose your religious beliefs on others, violates the Constitution.
Click to expand...


What on earth are you talking about--this is profoundly stupid. You can't even seem to grasp how stupid your talking point of "If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one" is. That's like saying, "If you think rape is wrong, just don't get raped"....but it's fine if someone else gets raped?


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
> 
> If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.
> 
> *IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> THINK, woman, for pity's sake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread has some of the most ridiculous reasons and arguments for baby murder I've ever read.
> 
> Leftists truly are evil ignorant morons
Click to expand...

Seeing that you are unable to prove when life begins, while making that judgment call yourself, do you have any idea the ignorance, the arrogance and the religious fanaticism you bring to the debate?


----------



## Death Angel

Dana7360 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion.  The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.
> 
> Who will raise it?
> 
> Who is responsible for such a being?
Click to expand...

The parents. See how easy this is


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
Click to expand...

Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion.  The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.
> 
> Who will raise it?
> 
> Who is responsible for such a being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The parents. See how easy this is
Click to expand...

Really? What parents?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to start registering pussies, complete with quarterly inspections to detect any pregnancies, and then a birthing camp to make sure everything goes just right.
Click to expand...

Please, don’t give the authoritarian right any ideas.

Conservatives would create a Ministry of Birth, where a doctor would be required to report to the state that his patient is pregnant.

The pregnancy would then be registered with the state and the pregnant woman assigned a ‘minder’ authorized to ‘monitor’ the pregnancy.

Any missed appointments with the doctor would be reported to the state, with the pregnant woman subject to arrest, detention, and interrogation as to why she missed her appointment.

Needless to say, the authoritarian right couldn’t care less that the child will be born into a situation of poverty and deprivation where his life and well-being would be in jeopardy as a consequence.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SassyIrishLass said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
Click to expand...

And?

That one might perceive abortion to be a ‘sin’ is not ‘justification’ to violate a woman’s right to privacy.

Citizens are at liberty to subjectively believe that abortion is ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ or a ‘sin’ and to not have an abortion accordingly.

Citizens are at liberty to speak out against the practice and to advocate for an end to abortion consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

But citizens are not at liberty to ‘ban’ abortion the consequence of their subjective personal or religious beliefs and compel a woman to give birth against her will where the state has no authority to do so.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
Click to expand...

The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.
Click to expand...


Jones flapping his arms and babbling away...clueless


----------



## Death Angel

BWK said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
> 
> 
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion.  The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.
> 
> Who will raise it?
> 
> Who is responsible for such a being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The parents. See how easy this is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? What parents?
Click to expand...

Good Allah you guys are dumm

par·ent
/ˈperənt/
Learn to pronounce
_noun_
plural noun: *parents*

1.
a father or mother.


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
> 
> 
> 
> I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion.  The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.
> 
> Who will raise it?
> 
> Who is responsible for such a being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The parents. See how easy this is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? What parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Allah you guys are dumm
> 
> par·ent
> /ˈperənt/
> Learn to pronounce
> _noun_
> plural noun: *parents*
> 
> 1.
> a father or mother.
Click to expand...

So you can't answer the question as we suspected you wouldn't. But was just checking to see if you had answered it honestly the first time, and you did not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SweetSue92 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> the worst thing so called 'pro lifers' say - i say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad....  is when they use the term 'baby'  when referring to a zygote or embryo or a few 'weeks' old gestational fetus is the same as a post born person with a history.
> 
> when a clump of cells & tissue has more value than babies whose cord is cut...& they & their mamas are on their own as far as food, medical care, housing & education or GOD forbid, they are brown & are in cages ready to be sent back to their 3rd word 'shit holes' ,  something is seriously & defectively wrong with their brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A zygote, embryo and fetus are just terms to use for human development, like newborn, toddler, preschooler, pre-teen, teenager. They don't confer designation of worth on a person.
> 
> 2. The 70s called, they want their busted "clump of cells" talking point back.
> 
> 3. No one is saying the baby has MORE value than the mother. But, you do not KILL someone because another finds the life inconvenient or unwanted. This goes without saying in all other facets of life.
> 
> 4. You deflect to ranting because you have no other case to make. See above.
Click to expand...

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the right to privacy.

That some might subjectively believe that the reason or reasons why a woman elects to terminate her pregnancy are ‘wrong’ or ‘invalid’ is legally irrelevant, in no manner ‘justification’ to deny a woman that choice guaranteed to her by the Constitution.


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jones flapping his arms and babbling away...clueless
Click to expand...

I will ask you again, while you run from the question. 
*Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
*
You run your fat keyboard on this forum until you can't. Stop being a coward and answer the question.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am not validating YOUR arguments.
> 
> I stated my position on late term abortions. A decision between a woman and her doctor regarding her late term pregnancy is still her decision. No control has been taken away from her. I trust the woman and her doctor to do the right thing. The rest is not my business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  I never asked you to validate MY argument, Einstein, I've been asking you to support YOUR own so-called argument. You see, that's what people do in these discussions.  The reasonable people, anyway.
> 
> But yeah, I know, you won't answer direct questions, you won't support your own 'argument', you seem oblivious to your numerous logical fallacies, and as Pumpkin said, you're just repeating your same tired stawman over and over and over.   *yawn*
> 
> Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll just assume you _do_ support killing a full-term baby moments away from delivery for no reason at all. In other words, infanticide.  I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer would get along great with you.
Click to expand...


For the millionth tired time. I'm not seeking your approval.

In fact, I have defended my position so perfectly that not one person in here has been able to prove me wrong. I think that is what has you so aggravated.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
Click to expand...

Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.

To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.


----------



## Death Angel

BWK said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
Click to expand...

You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happened


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jones flapping his arms and babbling away...clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will ask you again, while you run from the question.
> *Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
> *
> You run your fat keyboard on this forum until you can't. Stop being a coward and answer the question.
Click to expand...


At conception dumbfuck. Now sit your loudmouth stupid fucking ass down...jackass


----------



## BWK

The Purge said:


>


Does that mean the woman controlling her own body is responsible for controlling a man's dick? Where's his responsibility in all this?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Death Angel said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happened
Click to expand...


That one is as stupid as a sack of hammers


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's made it clear that she rejects any attempt to make her internal organs state property.
Click to expand...

Her internal organs are separate from her baby forming in her womb. Refusing access to those organs in which sustains the baby's life is a premeditated plot to end that life prematurely.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
Click to expand...

But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.

None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.

This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.


----------



## Rustic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
Click to expand...


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> 
> 
> It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jones flapping his arms and babbling away...clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will ask you again, while you run from the question.
> *Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
> *
> You run your fat keyboard on this forum until you can't. Stop being a coward and answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At conception dumbfuck. Now sit your loudmouth stupid fucking ass down...jackass
Click to expand...

That's not what the science tells us. I already posted the link proving that there is no consensus when life begins according to science. Telling me it begins at conception is not proving a scientific point. You'll have to take my link apart if you are to be credible. So far you have said shit. Get started, or you've been bull shitting and lying the whole time. 

You want to debate on this forum? Fine! Then debate. Show us what you got, because the pro-choice crowd is tired of these chicken shit games of using religion and non supporting arguments to make your case. 

I need for you to show me from a link where life begins. I don't want theories,  philosophical, or religious excuses. I want hard evidence. And if you can't provide it, then shut the hell up about it and go back into your hole.


----------



## BWK

Rustic said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more.


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that higher authority knows when life begins. You don't.
Click to expand...

And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.


----------



## Rustic

BWK said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more.
Click to expand...


----------



## Vandalshandle

I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....


----------



## Death Angel

SassyIrishLass said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> 
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one is as stupid as a sack of hammers
Click to expand...

The problem is, they all agree. They want a world where THEY do as they please, without responsibility, and leave YOU and me to pay their way thru life. Self-centered bastards!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....



Only when one of you unhinged loons lose your minds over one and beat someone over it..


----------



## NotYourBody

SweetSue92 said:


> The parents. See how easy this is



Tell me your plan for FORCING parents to take full responsibility from birth to adulthood for that childs physical and emotional (that's important, so they don't later shoot up schools, churches, concerts, etc.) needs?

I'll need a method that has not already failed.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one is as stupid as a sack of hammers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is, they all agree. They want a world where THEY do as they please, without responsibility, and leave YOU and me to pay their way thru life. Self-centered bastards!
Click to expand...



I have a niece in Texas getting an abortion. Please send her a check for $1,815.


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> 
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happened
Click to expand...

And you keep saying nothing. Why are you such a coward? A question was asked, and you cowardly attack the poster. Lol! This is all you people do.


----------



## BWK

Rustic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> 
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more. X2!


----------



## Rustic

Vandalshandle said:


> I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....


Lol
Political correctness is developing shit stains like this little fella... You’re out of touch with reality


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one is as stupid as a sack of hammers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is, they all agree. They want a world where THEY do as they please, without responsibility, and leave YOU and me to pay their way thru life. Self-centered bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a niece in Texas getting an abortion. Please send her a check for $1,815.
Click to expand...


You pay for the irresponsibility


----------



## The Purge

BWK said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean the woman controlling her own body is responsible for controlling a man's dick? Where's his responsibility in all this?
Click to expand...

Keep your pussy to yourselves and NO PROBLEM


----------



## Rustic

BWK said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more. X2!
Click to expand...


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb. No longer is her privacy allowed to trump the life of a human being growing inside of her body. The state recognizes two human beings instead of one in the case of a pregnant woman. If she is killed along with her unborn baby in a crash where the drunk person is at fault that hit her, then two charges are levied in the case against the perp. One for the mother, and one for the baby. The drunk didn't just kill one, he killed two.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's made it clear that she rejects any attempt to make her internal organs state property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her internal organs are separate from her baby forming in her womb. Refusing access to those organs in which sustains the baby's life is a premeditated plot to end that life prematurely.
Click to expand...


Men may not know this but the fetus inside a uterus is not separate from the woman's body. It is created in, attached to, nourished by, and grown in a woman's uterus.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.



Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's made it clear that she rejects any attempt to make her internal organs state property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her internal organs are separate from her baby forming in her womb. Refusing access to those organs in which sustains the baby's life is a premeditated plot to end that life prematurely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men may not know this but the fetus inside a uterus is not separate from the woman's body. It is created in, attached to, nourished by, and grown in a woman's uterus.
Click to expand...

Yeah. We know. That's why, when it is born, the husband and wife are to raise the child. The child is "attached to and nourished by" the father (husband) and mother (wife).


----------



## Rustic

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus. Was that just a mistake?
Click to expand...


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> Yeah. We know. That's why, when it is born, the husband and wife are to raise the child. The child is "attached to and nourished by" the father (husband) and mother (wife).



Hold on there cowpoke! Husband and wife? Only a married husband and wife can conceive a child in your brave new MAGA world?


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.
Click to expand...

That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening. 

It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Everyone can forget about the religious angle on this. God talked to me about it, and told me that he is cool with abortion. In fact, he told me that was why there is nothing in the Bible about it. He also told me that he, personally, causes miscarriages every day.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's made it clear that she rejects any attempt to make her internal organs state property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her internal organs are separate from her baby forming in her womb. Refusing access to those organs in which sustains the baby's life is a premeditated plot to end that life prematurely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men may not know this but the fetus inside a uterus is not separate from the woman's body. It is created in, attached to, nourished by, and grown in a woman's uterus.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, the life wasn't there, and then it is, and the attachments are formed to supply life sustaining nutrients etc to that life now forming in the body. Two lives now, and not one for whom decides the other one doesn't matter, so just end that life ? Evil.


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> Everyone can forget about the religious angle on this. God talked to me about it, and told me that he is cool with abortion. In fact, he told me that was why there is nothing in the Bible about it. He also told me that he, personally, causes miscarriages every day.



Sweet. Thanks for the info!


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
Click to expand...

LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> 
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
Click to expand...


What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that higher authority knows when life begins. You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Someone on the Right finally slipped up and answered their own  question about abortion  honestly, without even knowing it. Lol! This is hilarious. 

Since science through my link had no consensus as to when life begins, I left that decision up to God to answer it for us. Unfortunately, God hasn't given us the answer. Now the previous poster wrongfully concluded I knew more than God, but it should be painfully clear to him or her, by way of my link, that I was leaving the decision up to God, not myself. 

But the funny thing  that happened along the way, is  I noticed that the previous poster was doing the same thing I was. He was giving credit to God as I was. Meaning, the poster doesn't know more than God, and neither do I. And the poster was right. Lol! The poster just put the decision with the argument in God's hand. Which has been my whole argument the whole time. 

You see, it's not that hard to extract the truth from these so called pro-lifers, while making them contradict their own positions, by forcing them to tell the truth. The poster left it up to God. Thanks for helping me reinforce the validity of my own argument.


----------



## BWK

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
Click to expand...

Nothing! He just got caught running around like the chicken with the head cut off with his own argument.


----------



## Rustic

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that higher authority knows when life begins. You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks! Someone on the Right finally slipped up and answered their own  question about abortion  honestly, without even knowing it. Lol! This is hilarious.
> 
> Since science through my link had no consensus as to when life begins, I left that decision up to God to answer it for us. Unfortunately, God hasn't given us the answer. Now the previous poster wrongfully concluded I knew more than God, but it should be painfully clear to him or her, by way of my link, that I was leaving the decision up to God, not myself.
> 
> But the funny thing  that happened along the way, is  I noticed that the previous poster was doing the same thing I was. He was giving credit to God as I was. Meaning, the poster doesn't know more than God, and neither do I. And the poster was right. Lol! The poster just put the decision with the argument in God's hand. Which has been my whole argument the whole time.
> 
> You see, it's not that hard to extract the truth from these so called pro-lifers, while making them contradict their own positions, by forcing them to tell the truth. The poster left it up to God. Thanks for helping me reinforce the validity of my own argument.
Click to expand...

Lol
There are three parties involved an abortion... Only one is absolutely innocent. Then pays the ultimate price… The only one that does.
A tiny percentage of abortions are due to rape and incest, the rest of them are bad life choices. And that determines character…


----------



## badger2

No, there was always life. The delirium was to see the Supreme Court try to divide trimesters and times. duh


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus. Was that just a mistake?
Click to expand...

He gave human beings free will, but that doesn't mean humans can't sin, and endanger themselves to hell over their choices made.

Society has a stake in promoting the welfare of the citizens, and aborting babies isn't doing that. It is turning a blind eye towards evil until that evil grows into something that begins to threaten society and the welfare of it's citizens (in all facets of their journeys in which they embark on in life), including getting married and having children as a result of that marriage. It is why support systems and programs have been created to make sure these pro-life activities are assisted if needed by these programs. Systems created to end life, and to be counter productive to the well being of the citizenry is something man has embarked upon that runs contradictory to the very integrity of life as we have understood it to be.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?
Click to expand...

He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God.  This is his quote;   *And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.*


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
Click to expand...

If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's made it clear that she rejects any attempt to make her internal organs state property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her internal organs are separate from her baby forming in her womb. Refusing access to those organs in which sustains the baby's life is a premeditated plot to end that life prematurely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men may not know this but the fetus inside a uterus is not separate from the woman's body. It is created in, attached to, nourished by, and grown in a woman's uterus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait a minute, the life wasn't there, and then it is, and the attachments are formed to supply life sustaining nutrients etc to that life now forming in the body. Two lives now, and not one for whom decides the other one doesn't matter, so just end that life ? Evil.
Click to expand...


Formed by the uterus. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God.  This is his quote;   *And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.*
Click to expand...

Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.  Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb. No longer is her privacy allowed to trump the life of a human being growing inside of her body. The state recognizes two human beings instead of one in the case of a pregnant woman. If she is killed along with her unborn baby in a crash where the drunk person is at fault that hit her, then two charges are levied in the case against the perp. One for the mother, and one for the baby. The drunk didn't just kill one, he killed two.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

When a woman becomes pregnant, she doesn’t ‘give up’ her right to privacy – that’s ignorant nonsense.

The right to privacy concerns solely the relationship between the government and those governed, citizens entitled to their protected liberties immune from attack by the state, protected liberties not possessed by an embryo/fetus:

“…the state interest in potential human life is not an interest _in_ _loco parentis_, *for the fetus is not a person.*” _Casey, ibid_

As for a pregnant woman killed by a drunk driver, that fails as a false comparison fallacy, having nothing whatsoever to do with the right to privacy, substantive due process, and the protected liberties of the woman.

Such laws have provisions prohibiting the criminal prosecution of doctors who perform lawful abortions.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
Click to expand...

You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything. 

The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
Click to expand...


You don't wanna talk about, eh? Well, I will. I think you see my comments as "twisted" things because I'm pointing out that you're using exactly the same arguments and tactics that liberals use when they want to shove their social engineering down our throats. Your position is rife with hypocrisy. Maybe that's why the truth seems "twisted" to you.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God.  This is his quote;   *And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.
Click to expand...

 Which is the beauty of your own slip up. You did leave it up to God, which you are  admitting you have no idea whatsoever that it is life or evil. And in trying to hold onto your position, you are giving us two different versions now. You can't have it both ways. Leaving it up to God, it is impossible to claim a life is killed or evil. That makes zero sense in logic. 





> Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them.


 There is no consensus in science or by God. So, if you vote on it, you're just tossing up your hand in defiance of both, if you vote against the two. Again, that makes no sense at all. 





> You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.


 "Free will of the people" for your side of the argument is to ignore God and science. That's what you mean by "free will."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's made it clear that she rejects any attempt to make her internal organs state property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her internal organs are separate from her baby forming in her womb. Refusing access to those organs in which sustains the baby's life is a premeditated plot to end that life prematurely.
Click to expand...

But it doesn’t end the life of an entity entitled to Constitutional protections – as a fact of law an embryo/fetus is neither a ‘person’ nor a 'baby,' where the protected liberties of the woman are paramount:

“Decisional autonomy must limit the State's power to inject into a woman's most personal deliberations its own views of what is best. The State may promote its preferences by funding childbirth, by creating and maintaining alternatives to abortion, and by espousing the virtues of family; but it must respect the individual's freedom to make such judgments.

This theme runs throughout our decisions concerning reproductive freedom.’ _ibid_


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God.  This is his quote;   *And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.  Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.
Click to expand...


Again, words on paper will not stop a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion if she makes that decision. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.

You have not stopped abortion, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist it is true.


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God.  This is his quote;   *And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.  Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, words on paper will not stop a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion if she makes that decision. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> You have not stopped abortion, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist it is true.
Click to expand...

This "argument" isnt winning you any points. You've been slapped around thoroughly and you just keep coming back.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NotYourBody said:


> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.


_Good grief, I'll explain again since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._

_Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_


NotYourBody said:


> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.


_Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._


NotYourBody said:


> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.


_All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._

_"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
Click to expand...


Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.


----------



## SAYIT

Vandalshandle said:


> Everyone can forget about the religious angle on this. God talked to me about it, and told me that he is cool with abortion. In fact, he told me that was why there is nothing in the Bible about it. He also told me that he, personally, causes miscarriages every day.


That wasn't God but rather just the little voices in your toaster that inform so many leftarded opinions. Very sad.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...


If you support or condone baby murder you have no ethics, morals or values


----------



## Vandalshandle

SAYIT said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can forget about the religious angle on this. God talked to me about it, and told me that he is cool with abortion. In fact, he told me that was why there is nothing in the Bible about it. He also told me that he, personally, causes miscarriages every day.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't God but rather just the little voices in your toaster that inform so many leftarded opinions. Very sad.
Click to expand...


Actually, I don't have a toaster. God told me that toasted bread is an abomination. If you have one, you must get rid of it, or you will be on the road to hell.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’


_Actually, I never claimed anything regarding or relating to law, I've been explaining ethics. If you're attempting to conflate ethics with law, perhaps you'd be willing to explain why the Government has legitimacy to murder, steal, extort, and kidnap, while the rest of the human race does not. Ethics are not personal or subjective, they are objective. If you want to argue about that, by all means, let's take it to the Bull Ring._


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.


_Law has nothing to do with murder, claiming that it's a law-based thing only means that those who have become politicians have excluded themselves from the standards which apply to them. This is the fallacy of special pleading, and an appeal to authority, all wrapped into one._


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’


_Laws are just opinions written on paper by politicians, and backed by violence. Appealing to "law" is literally an appeal to authority and has nothing to do with my argument from ethics._


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.


_Once again, another appeal to authority. So, if it was "settled law" that the sky was green, Clayton here would believe it fully legitimate. Good to know that you have all of these random people you've never met before in your life to tell you how to think, and you blindly and religiously are fully willing to accept and roll with it. _

_As a matter of actual fact, the "fetus" does not fall into ANY other species, as it is a stage of development of the organism known as a "human". It is a human at the moment of conception, and is a living human at that, by all scientific criteria. Claiming that this self-owning agent does not own its life is merely special pleading. This self-owning agent has not infringed on any of the individual rights of another, or deprived them of anything, therefor the burden of proof is on the active party to justify murdering it. In this wall of text, you have not made a single ethical argument, one single solitary time. You appealed to authority over and over. This is why nobody likes you, Clayton, you just repeatedly tell us that something is so because the government claimed it, you made no attempts to even begin to justify it._


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.


_Point to one single time I advocated for the creation of any law, or that the Government should do anything. _

_You, of course, can't, because my argument was that the action is unethical, and that's because it is. We can also see that you made no move to claim that the action is ethical._

_So, since you skipped over absolutely everything I said, and addressed none of it, I'll repeat the argument again, and hopefully this time the words I use are small enough for even you to understand:_

_The child is a living being, the child is human, the child is therefor a self-owning agent with individual rights of its own. The child therefor owns itself and its life. To deprive the child of its life, you must prove that doing so is ethical, by proving that it has inflicted demonstrable harm on someone else. Your argument is otherwise just special pleading._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

_Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.
> 
> To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.
> 
> This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb. No longer is her privacy allowed to trump the life of a human being growing inside of her body. The state recognizes two human beings instead of one in the case of a pregnant woman. If she is killed along with her unborn baby in a crash where the drunk person is at fault that hit her, then two charges are levied in the case against the perp. One for the mother, and one for the baby. The drunk didn't just kill one, he killed two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> When a woman becomes pregnant, she doesn’t ‘give up’ her right to privacy – that’s ignorant nonsense.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns solely the relationship between the government and those governed, citizens entitled to their protected liberties immune from attack by the state, protected liberties not possessed by an embryo/fetus:
> 
> “…the state interest in potential human life is not an interest _in_ _loco parentis_, *for the fetus is not a person.*” _Casey, ibid_
> 
> As for a pregnant woman killed by a drunk driver, that fails as a false comparison fallacy, having nothing whatsoever to do with the right to privacy, substantive due process, and the protected liberties of the woman.
> 
> Such laws have provisions prohibiting the criminal prosecution of doctors who perform lawful abortions.
Click to expand...

Wrong, when a life separate of the mother's life is now involved, and the mother decides to take that life by any means nessesary, then the government has the right to step in per the laws protecting the right to life in this nation, and to stop anyone from taking the life that has now formed in the womb regardless of how the mother thinks that the baby will be a hindering person that might inconvenience her life once enters into the world. How sick is a person who will kill the life living in her body for inconvenient purposes or how sick is a person who would support such a thing ?? The indoctronation and desensitization of human life in which the leftist globalist has caused in this country is unfortunate to say the very least about it.


----------



## SAYIT

BWK said:


> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything. The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments...


 Methinks thou doest PROJECT too much.
You continue to argue the same point - your belief in women's God-Given "right" to slaughter and flush unborn babies - ad nauseam, proving the OP premise ... that there is no good argument for abortion. 





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But it doesn’t end the life of an entity entitled to Constitutional protections – as a fact of law an embryo/fetus is neither a ‘person’ nor a 'baby,' where the protected liberties of the woman are paramount...


Babies in the womb are legally protected persons under circumstances other than abortion. How convenient.

*http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx*
The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every session, pro-life and pro-choice advocates garner support for policies around this issue. The debate concerning “fetal homicide” hinges on the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws...


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
Click to expand...


There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God.  This is his quote;   *And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.  Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, words on paper will not stop a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion if she makes that decision. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> You have not stopped abortion, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This "argument" isnt winning you any points. You've been slapped around thoroughly and you just keep coming back.
Click to expand...

I went back ten pages on this thread, and you haven't presented any logical arguments against abortion. You're a troll and a bull shitter.


SassyIrishLass said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you support or condone baby murder you have no ethics, morals or values
Click to expand...

And you are a cut and run coward who cannot debate the very thing you so adamantly proclaim. What is your argument that it is murder? Answer, you have none, because you cowardly ran from my question. It can only be murder when you establish absolute truth through evidence as to when life begins. You can't answer that question so you are posting lies about murder, ethics, morals, and values.


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything.
> 
> The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.
Click to expand...

We are talking about rolling back the deplorable brainwashing our country has suffered under leftist propagandist, Marxist, communist, Nazi, globalist who have implemented all this stuff in order to divide and conquer this nation, and to bring it in line with some sort of one world government.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

BWK said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
Click to expand...

_At the moment of conception, a new and unique DNA sequence is developed, all of the child's information is already contained there/ Ceasing this process is literally murder. What you're hinting at is the "If we kill it a second before people call it alive, it's not technically murder!", and it is. You used force against an innocent human to halt the process of their birth, that is death. What you're using now is solely an appeal to authority, you didn't support the assertion with a single argument._


----------



## SAYIT

Vandalshandle said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can forget about the religious angle on this. God talked to me about it, and told me that he is cool with abortion. In fact, he told me that was why there is nothing in the Bible about it. He also told me that he, personally, causes miscarriages every day.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't God but rather just the little voices in your toaster that inform so many leftarded opinions. Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't have a toaster. God told me that toasted bread is an abomination. If you have one, you must get rid of it, or you will be on the road to hell.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... AOC heard that also. She now believes it's best to avoid talking to your toaster:


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?
> 
> 
> 
> He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God.  This is his quote;   *And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.  Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, words on paper will not stop a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion if she makes that decision. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> You have not stopped abortion, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This "argument" isnt winning you any points. You've been slapped around thoroughly and you just keep coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went back ten pages on this thread, and you haven't presented any logical arguments against abortion. You're a troll and a bull shitter.
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you support or condone baby murder you have no ethics, morals or values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are a cut and run coward who cannot debate the very thing you so adamantly proclaim. What is your argument that it is murder? Answer, you have none, because you cowardly ran from my question. It can only be murder when you establish absolute truth through evidence as to when life begins. You can't answer that question so you are posting lies about murder, ethics, morals, and values.
Click to expand...


Ahh shaddup ya befuddled loon. I think you're a total waste of air


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything.
> 
> The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.
Click to expand...


You are either willfully ignorant, or dishonest.  Or both.  There’s absolutely zero doubt *according to science *when life begins, it has been well-established for many decades that the life of a human being begins at conception, this is BASIC BIOLOGY.

I already posted a truckload of excepts from biology/embryology textbooks and clear quotes from scientists and doctors. And that was only a small portion of quotes, I could have posted more. But something tells me even if I posted 50,000 quotes, you still would not accept it because it’s not what you want to hear or believe.

Stop ignoring the clear words from basic biology and top scientists in this field,  just so you can maintain your ignorant, misguided,  spiritually bankrupt pro-death position.

By the way, if you’re genuinely interested in this debate, then watch this video.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
Click to expand...

_So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"_

_A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate._


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything.
> 
> The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either willfully ignorant, or dishonest.  Or both.  There’s absolutely zero doubt *according to science *when life begins, it has been well-established for many decades that the life of a human being begins at conception, this is BASIC BIOLOGY.
> 
> I already posted a truckload of excepts from biology/embryology textbooks and clear quotes from scientists and doctors. And that was only a small portion of quotes, I could have posted more. But something tells me even if I posted 50,000 quotes, you still would not accept it because it’s not what you want to hear or believe.
> 
> Stop ignoring the clear words from basic biology and top scientists in this field,  just so you can maintain your ignorant, misguided,  spiritually bankrupt pro-death position.
> 
> By the way, if you’re genuinely interested in this debate, then watch this video.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Life at conception is nothing more than theory, and has been debunked by the scientific community; Why life doesn't begin at conception

A*s an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.*

This isn't hard to understand people.

And what happens when the "live" egg does not join with the "live" sperm? Take a wild guess?

When does life begin? It might depend on your faith.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
Click to expand...


You sure do bring up God and religion a lot. What comes to mind is the guy *doth protest too much*, methinks.  It’s not even the topic here, yet it’s in most of your posts.

Interesting. And telling.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> This "argument" isnt winning you any points. You've been slapped around thoroughly and you just keep coming back.


It's not an argument pal. It's a fact.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything.
> 
> The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either willfully ignorant, or dishonest.  Or both.  There’s absolutely zero doubt *according to science *when life begins, it has been well-established for many decades that the life of a human being begins at conception, this is BASIC BIOLOGY.
> 
> I already posted a truckload of excepts from biology/embryology textbooks and clear quotes from scientists and doctors. And that was only a small portion of quotes, I could have posted more. But something tells me even if I posted 50,000 quotes, you still would not accept it because it’s not what you want to hear or believe.
> 
> Stop ignoring the clear words from basic biology and top scientists in this field,  just so you can maintain your ignorant, misguided,  spiritually bankrupt pro-death position.
> 
> By the way, if you’re genuinely interested in this debate, then watch this video.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! Life at conception is nothing more than theory, and has been debunked by the scientific community; Why life doesn't begin at conception
> 
> This isn't hard to understand people.
Click to expand...

You post an *opinion* piece from an msm article? Lololol And then you disregard truckloads of excerpts from biology textbooks and scientists who specialize in this field?  Don’t make me laugh. You’re being embarrassingly ignorant.  PS, watch that video.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NotYourBody said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain again since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to be more concise with your thought if you expect me to read them.
Click to expand...


She's very concuse, sock. You just don't have the capacity to understand what she's saying

You can now proceed to screech "it's my body" one hundred different ways


----------



## SAYIT

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's made it clear that she rejects any attempt to make her internal organs state property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her internal organs are separate from her baby forming in her womb. Refusing access to those organs in which sustains the baby's life is a premeditated plot to end that life prematurely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men may not know this but the fetus inside a uterus is not separate from the woman's body. It is created in, attached to, nourished by, and grown in a woman's uterus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait a minute, the life wasn't there, and then it is, and the attachments are formed to supply life sustaining nutrients etc to that life now forming in the body. Two lives now, and not one for whom decides the other one doesn't matter, so just end that life ? Evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Formed by the uterus. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

But it can be vacuumed, eh? 

Yanno, while I do not agree that killing the baby-in-womb is a woman's prerogative, I certainly understand and agree with your rejection of the state's right to control your body. I would feel the same but we aren't only talking about your body are we? I'd much prefer that many if not most of those who choose abortion for other than a direct and serious threat to the mother's life - less than 10% of abortions -  would not but we don't live in a society in which everyone does the right thing, much to everyone's diminishment.


----------



## beagle9

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
Click to expand...

An abortion doctor reaching into a human being, and then forcefully killing a life that is living in that human being (by some method created), and doing such a thing because he has been instructed to do so, has got to be one sick thing to have to do, because we are talking about a human being here. 

Like anything that is killed, does it struggle against that which is killing it one wonders ???  The doctor knows this, and alledgedly experiences it as testimony has attested to in the past, but somehow he has desensitized himself to it maybe ?? 

Life isn't taken so easily, and that is why it is such a horrific thing, especially if there is no justifiable or good reason for such a thing.

A woman in the news was killed by another woman, and her baby was taken from her body (cut out) by her killer. She was caught, and the baby lived. Good God have mercy.


----------



## NotYourBody

SAYIT said:


> But it can be vacuumed, eh?
> 
> Yanno, while I do not agree that killing the baby-in-womb is a woman's prerogative, I certainly understand and agree with your rejection of the state's right to control your body. I would feel the same but we aren't only talking about your body are we? I'd much prefer that many if not most of those who choose abortion for other than a direct and serious threat to the mother's life - less than 10% of abortions -  would not but we don't live in a society in which everyone does the right thing, much to everyone's diminishment.


I'd much prefer it if every single man had to undergo a forced vasectomy the first time he abandons his child.

We don't always get what we want. That's why it's best to concentrate on the things we can.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

beagle9 said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An abortion doctor reaching into a human being, and then forcefully killing a life that is living in that human being (by some method created), and doing such a thing because he has been instructed to do so, has got to be one sick thing to have to do, because we are talking about a human being here.
> 
> Like anything that is killed, does it struggle against that which is killing it one wonders ???  The doctor knows this, and alledgedly experiences it as testimony has attested to in the past, but somehow he has desensitized himself to it maybe ??
> 
> Life isn't taken so easily, and that is why it is such a horrific thing, especially if there is no justifiable or good reason for such a thing.
> 
> A woman in the news was killed by another woman, and her baby was taken from her body (cut out) by her killer. She was caught, and the baby lived. Good God have mercy.
Click to expand...

_It baffles me that anyone can condone "abortion", given this knowledge. I've watched videos and studied the procedures, I've studied ethics, I've had so many debates on the subject that I can't even begin to remember them all, yet I still can't fathom why anyone outside of the Government would condone or undertake such actions._

_The best I can come up with is that someone who has already had an "abortion", or knows someone who has had one, doesn't want to contemplate what has just happened. They never want to think back, and consider the possibility that they just murdered someone, and think of what kind of monster they are._


----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.
> 
> It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything.
> 
> The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking about rolling back the deplorable brainwashing our country has suffered under leftist propagandist, Marxist, communist, Nazi, globalist who have implemented all this stuff in order to divide and conquer this nation, and to bring it in line with some sort of one world government.
Click to expand...


Billy Bob? Is that you? I told you to quit horsing around down there in the mail room on that computer! When I get down there, the mail had better be sorted, or you will be painting stripes on the asphalt parking lot on Tuesday!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"_
> 
> _A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate._
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure do bring up God and religion a lot. What comes to mind is the guy *doth protest too much*, methinks.  It’s not even the topic here, yet it’s in most of your posts.
> 
> Interesting. And telling.
Click to expand...


The great and mystical Karnack is divining my inner thoughts!


----------



## Death Angel

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God.  This is his quote;   *And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.  Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, words on paper will not stop a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion if she makes that decision. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> You have not stopped abortion, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This "argument" isnt winning you any points. You've been slapped around thoroughly and you just keep coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went back ten pages on this thread, and you haven't presented any logical arguments against abortion. You're a troll and a bull shitter.
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you support or condone baby murder you have no ethics, morals or values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are a cut and run coward who cannot debate the very thing you so adamantly proclaim. What is your argument that it is murder? Answer, you have none, because you cowardly ran from my question. It can only be murder when you establish absolute truth through evidence as to when life begins. You can't answer that question so you are posting lies about murder, ethics, morals, and values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh shaddup ya befuddled loon. I think you're a total waste of air
Click to expand...

Some of these people ALMOST make me want to rethink my position. But this kind of stupidity is TAUGHT. no one is born this stupid.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Death Angel said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.  Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, words on paper will not stop a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion if she makes that decision. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> You have not stopped abortion, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This "argument" isnt winning you any points. You've been slapped around thoroughly and you just keep coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went back ten pages on this thread, and you haven't presented any logical arguments against abortion. You're a troll and a bull shitter.
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you support or condone baby murder you have no ethics, morals or values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are a cut and run coward who cannot debate the very thing you so adamantly proclaim. What is your argument that it is murder? Answer, you have none, because you cowardly ran from my question. It can only be murder when you establish absolute truth through evidence as to when life begins. You can't answer that question so you are posting lies about murder, ethics, morals, and values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh shaddup ya befuddled loon. I think you're a total waste of air
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of these people ALMOST make me want to rethink my position. But this kind of stupidity is TAUGHT. no one is born this stupid.
Click to expand...


A lot of strugglers on this thread


----------



## beagle9

Vandalshandle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.... You are one devious human being, and your attempt to twist everything into some sort of pretzel is making you look a fool on the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything.
> 
> The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking about rolling back the deplorable brainwashing our country has suffered under leftist propagandist, Marxist, communist, Nazi, globalist who have implemented all this stuff in order to divide and conquer this nation, and to bring it in line with some sort of one world government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billy Bob? Is that you? I told you to quit horsing around down there in the mail room on that computer! When I get down there, the mail had better be sorted, or you will be painting stripes on the asphalt parking lot on Tuesday!
Click to expand...

Good grief... Is this a retort when you are at a temporary lost for words ? Maybe you are worried that you are fixing to be demoted from abortion doctor to asphalt striping come Tuesday.


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> abandons his child


I can agree with that. And a promiscuous woman should be spayed.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am not validating YOUR arguments.
> 
> I stated my position on late term abortions. A decision between a woman and her doctor regarding her late term pregnancy is still her decision. No control has been taken away from her. I trust the woman and her doctor to do the right thing. The rest is not my business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  I never asked you to validate MY argument, Einstein, I've been asking you to support YOUR own so-called argument. You see, that's what people do in these discussions.  The reasonable people, anyway.
> 
> But yeah, I know, you won't answer direct questions, you won't support your own 'argument', you seem oblivious to your numerous logical fallacies, and as Pumpkin said, you're just repeating your same tired stawman over and over and over.   *yawn*
> 
> Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll just assume you _do_ support killing a full-term baby moments away from delivery for no reason at all. In other words, infanticide.  I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer would get along great with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the millionth tired time. I'm not seeking your approval.
> 
> In fact, I have defended my position so perfectly that not one person in here has been able to prove me wrong. I think that is what has you so aggravated.
Click to expand...


You must be joking. *You have done the exact opposite.  *You HAVEN’T defended your position, at all, in post after post after post. In fact, you even admitted that!

All you’ve done is repeat the same strawman over and over, ad nauseam, probably hundreds of times by now.  And then when a 17-year-old who is infinitely smarter and more mature than you pointed out to you that you’ve put forth nothing but logical fallacies, you said you don’t care.  Then when she tried to have an actual discussion with you again, your response was Tl;dr.

So I’ll take it that you’re joking/trolling when you say you’ve defended your position perfectly.  But then again, maybe in _your_ mind acting like a three-year-old with his fingers in his ears saying “Lala la la la” _is_ actually a good defense of your position.  This would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so sad at the same time.


----------



## Death Angel

beagle9 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything.
> 
> The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking about rolling back the deplorable brainwashing our country has suffered under leftist propagandist, Marxist, communist, Nazi, globalist who have implemented all this stuff in order to divide and conquer this nation, and to bring it in line with some sort of one world government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billy Bob? Is that you? I told you to quit horsing around down there in the mail room on that computer! When I get down there, the mail had better be sorted, or you will be painting stripes on the asphalt parking lot on Tuesday!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief... Is this a retort when you are at a temporary lost for words ? Maybe you are worried that you are fixing to be demoted from abortion doctor to asphalt striping come Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Asphalt striping is a huge PROMOTION over murderer (the taking of an innocent human life).


----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything.
> 
> The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We are talking about rolling back the deplorable brainwashing our country has suffered under leftist propagandist, Marxist, communist, Nazi, globalist who have implemented all this stuff in order to divide and conquer this nation, and to bring it in line with some sort of one world government*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billy Bob? Is that you? I told you to quit horsing around down there in the mail room on that computer! When I get down there, the mail had better be sorted, or you will be painting stripes on the asphalt parking lot on Tuesday!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief... Is this a retort when you are at a temporary lost for words ? Maybe you are worried that you are fixing to be demoted from abortion doctor to asphalt striping come Tuesday.
Click to expand...


Well, not to make too fine a point, but I simply could not believe that any sane person could have seriously posted what you did, in bold, above.


----------



## Death Angel

This thread makes it crystal clear for every reader to see that conservatives stand for LIFE and FREEDOM while the left is the party of DEATH, DESTRUCTION and SEFISHNESS.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"_
> 
> _A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.
Click to expand...

_That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me. _

_The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad. _

_If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not._


----------



## Death Angel

As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!

They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.

They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.

I'm gonna miss them!


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents. See how easy this is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me your plan for FORCING parents to take full responsibility from birth to adulthood for that childs physical and emotional (that's important, so they don't later shoot up schools, churches, concerts, etc.) needs?
> 
> I'll need a method that has not already failed.
Click to expand...


That wasn't my post, but you didn't answer my post that I can see. The one where I called you out on your juvenile tactics


----------



## SweetSue92

Rustic said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Political correctness is developing shit stains like this little fella... You’re out of touch with reality
Click to expand...


This kid is very young and his outsized reaction is not his fault. His mother should be talking him DOWN from his worry, not encouraging him. He's not a "sh1t stain"....he has been thoroughly indoctrinated. Shame on HER


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God.  This is his quote;   *And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.  Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, words on paper will not stop a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion if she makes that decision. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> You have not stopped abortion, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist it is true.
Click to expand...


That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.

Wow. So much fail.


----------



## Death Angel

SweetSue92 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Political correctness is developing shit stains like this little fella... You’re out of touch with reality
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kid is very young and his outsized reaction is not his fault. His mother should be talking him DOWN from his worry, not encouraging him. He's not a "sh1t stain"....he has been thoroughly indoctrinated. Shame on HER
Click to expand...

I think you're watching a future "environmentalist" KILLER if this is encouraged.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

SweetSue92 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Political correctness is developing shit stains like this little fella... You’re out of touch with reality
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kid is very young and his outsized reaction is not his fault. His mother should be talking him DOWN from his worry, not encouraging him. He's not a "sh1t stain"....he has been thoroughly indoctrinated. Shame on HER
Click to expand...


I'd be ashamed to post that video. Poor kid is doomed


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"_
> 
> _A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me. _
> 
> _The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad. _
> 
> _If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not._
Click to expand...


A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
B. I am not arguing.
C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.


----------



## SweetSue92

Death Angel said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Political correctness is developing shit stains like this little fella... You’re out of touch with reality
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kid is very young and his outsized reaction is not his fault. His mother should be talking him DOWN from his worry, not encouraging him. He's not a "sh1t stain"....he has been thoroughly indoctrinated. Shame on HER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you're watching a future "environmentalist" KILLER if this is encouraged.
Click to expand...


One can only hope he will come to his senses eventually


----------



## buttercup

Death Angel said:


> As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!
> 
> They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.
> 
> They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.
> 
> I'm gonna miss them!



Amen.  Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless.  Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can.  As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> abandons his child
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with that. And a promiscuous woman should be spayed.
Click to expand...

Go for it dude. Advocate. Get society on your side.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"_
> 
> _A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me. _
> 
> _The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad. _
> 
> _If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
> B. I am not arguing.
> C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.
Click to expand...

_If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts._


----------



## NotYourBody

SweetSue92 said:


> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.



Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
> 
> 
> 
> _So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"_
> 
> _A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me. _
> 
> _The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad. _
> 
> _If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
> B. I am not arguing.
> C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts._
Click to expand...


What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.


----------



## Vandalshandle

NotYourBody said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
Click to expand...


Apparently, rape does not occur in Alabama.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"_
> 
> _A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me. _
> 
> _The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad. _
> 
> _If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
> B. I am not arguing.
> C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Click to expand...

_That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics._


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
Click to expand...

You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.
> 
> 
> 
> _That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me. _
> 
> _The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad. _
> 
> _If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
> B. I am not arguing.
> C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics._
Click to expand...


If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me. _
> 
> _The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad. _
> 
> _If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
> B. I am not arguing.
> C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.
Click to expand...

_Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection._


----------



## Death Angel

buttercup said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!
> 
> They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.
> 
> They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.
> 
> I'm gonna miss them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless.  Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can.  As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.
Click to expand...

And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
Click to expand...

You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.

You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.

I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
> B. I am not arguing.
> C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.
> 
> 
> 
> _If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection._
Click to expand...


Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!
> 
> They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.
> 
> They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.
> 
> I'm gonna miss them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless.  Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can.  As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
Click to expand...


That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
Click to expand...


OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.

Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:


But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?
Click to expand...

_No. They have no legitimacy to demand that I murder anyone, especially on their behalf. They're just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers, who write opinions on paper, and back them with violence. I have no moral or ethical obligation to do anything they demand of me, and in fact, if they demand that I initiate force against someone else, I have a moral and ethical obligation NOT to do as I'm told._


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
> 
> 
> 
> _That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No. They have no legitimacy to demand that I murder anyone, especially on their behalf. They're just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers, who write opinions on paper, and back them with violence. I have no moral or ethical obligation to do anything they demand of me, and in fact, if they demand that I initiate force against someone else, I have a moral and ethical obligation NOT to do as I'm told._
Click to expand...


Well, good for you! So, I have now established that at least one of your ethics is as valid as mine! Congratulations!


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
Click to expand...


The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.

Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No. They have no legitimacy to demand that I murder anyone, especially on their behalf. They're just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers, who write opinions on paper, and back them with violence. I have no moral or ethical obligation to do anything they demand of me, and in fact, if they demand that I initiate force against someone else, I have a moral and ethical obligation NOT to do as I'm told._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, good for you! So, I have now established that at least one of your ethics is as valid as mine! Congratulations!
Click to expand...

_You seem to be confusing moral with ethical. Ethics are objective, morals are dependent on the individual. This means that the statement "Your ethics" is nonsensical at best._


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
Click to expand...


You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them. 

So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.
> 
> 
> 
> _Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No. They have no legitimacy to demand that I murder anyone, especially on their behalf. They're just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers, who write opinions on paper, and back them with violence. I have no moral or ethical obligation to do anything they demand of me, and in fact, if they demand that I initiate force against someone else, I have a moral and ethical obligation NOT to do as I'm told._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, good for you! So, I have now established that at least one of your ethics is as valid as mine! Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You seem to be confusing moral with ethical. Ethics are objective, morals are dependent on the individual. This means that the statement "Your ethics" is nonsensical at best._
Click to expand...


Tell me, Pumpkin, just how many angels CAN dance of the head of a pin?


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What pretzel?? What are you talking about? What have I twisted?
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see it, then maybe there is hope for you, but you need to quit working for evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't countering any arguments, and you aren't  saying anything.
> 
> The Right keeps circle jerking back to the same failed arguments. If all they do is to define life's beginning is at conception, they failed to prove that point. There is no scientific consensus. All that exist are theories. And since all of us have failed in proving when life begins by God's own words, then the anti-abortion argument will always be moot. Hence, why in the fluck don't you people understand why it is legal? No one can prove when life begins, and no one can prove life begins at conception. So what the hell are we talking about here? Answer, we are talking about religious, emotional,  arrogant, ignorant, bull shit coming from the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either willfully ignorant, or dishonest.  Or both.  There’s absolutely zero doubt *according to science *when life begins, it has been well-established for many decades that the life of a human being begins at conception, this is BASIC BIOLOGY.
> 
> I already posted a truckload of excepts from biology/embryology textbooks and clear quotes from scientists and doctors. And that was only a small portion of quotes, I could have posted more. But something tells me even if I posted 50,000 quotes, you still would not accept it because it’s not what you want to hear or believe.
> 
> Stop ignoring the clear words from basic biology and top scientists in this field,  just so you can maintain your ignorant, misguided,  spiritually bankrupt pro-death position.
> 
> By the way, if you’re genuinely interested in this debate, then watch this video.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! Life at conception is nothing more than theory, and has been debunked by the scientific community; Why life doesn't begin at conception
> 
> This isn't hard to understand people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post an *opinion* piece from an msm article? Lololol And then you disregard truckloads of excerpts from biology textbooks and scientists who specialize in this field?  Don’t make me laugh. You’re being embarrassingly ignorant.  PS, watch that video.
Click to expand...

I did. It is a  "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of  life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus.  Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.

Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God,  nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so,  science nor God, has given us the definitive  answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.


----------



## BWK

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
Click to expand...

You have not proven unacceptable actions.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
Click to expand...


Pro lifers tend to get very hazy when talking about making abortions illegal. What you fail to remember is that the only people being punished are MD's who perform them. Do you really think that the USA would be a better place if more MD's are in prison? Secondly, it is all academic anyway, because MD's would just go back to doing D&C's again, like they did before Roe. So, what have you accomplished?


----------



## BWK

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro lifers tend to get very hazy when talking about making abortions illegal. What you fail to remember is that the only people being punished are MD's who perform them. Do you really think that the USA would be a better place if more MD's are in prison? Secondly, it is all academic anyway, because MD's would just go back to doing D&C's again, like they did before Roe. So, what have you accomplished?
Click to expand...

Nothing!


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
Click to expand...


Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.
> 
> 
> 
> _Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No. They have no legitimacy to demand that I murder anyone, especially on their behalf. They're just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers, who write opinions on paper, and back them with violence. I have no moral or ethical obligation to do anything they demand of me, and in fact, if they demand that I initiate force against someone else, I have a moral and ethical obligation NOT to do as I'm told._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, good for you! So, I have now established that at least one of your ethics is as valid as mine! Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You seem to be confusing moral with ethical. Ethics are objective, morals are dependent on the individual. This means that the statement "Your ethics" is nonsensical at best._
Click to expand...


Pow!!! Right in the kisser


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro lifers tend to get very hazy when talking about making abortions illegal. What you fail to remember is that the only people being punished are MD's who perform them. Do you really think that the USA would be a better place if more MD's are in prison? Secondly, it is all academic anyway, because MD's would just go back to doing D&C's again, like they did before Roe. So, what have you accomplished?
Click to expand...


Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
Click to expand...

They simply cannot provide intelligent rebuttals. They only provide evidence based on their own feelings, emotions, and religion, while doing their best to hijack the science. Science says there is no consensus.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro lifers tend to get very hazy when talking about making abortions illegal. What you fail to remember is that the only people being punished are MD's who perform them. Do you really think that the USA would be a better place if more MD's are in prison? Secondly, it is all academic anyway, because MD's would just go back to doing D&C's again, like they did before Roe. So, what have you accomplished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
Click to expand...


Ok, so you want to go back to the Middle Ages, when even the mother would forfeit her freedom, or life, because that was when the church ruled the world. There was no punishment for the mother in the US before Roe. Maybe bring back burning at the stake?


----------



## BWK

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro lifers tend to get very hazy when talking about making abortions illegal. What you fail to remember is that the only people being punished are MD's who perform them. Do you really think that the USA would be a better place if more MD's are in prison? Secondly, it is all academic anyway, because MD's would just go back to doing D&C's again, like they did before Roe. So, what have you accomplished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
Click to expand...

An innocent what? Too bad you can't answer that intelligently.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
Click to expand...


Finally some acknowledgement of a tiny bit of reality. No law will prevent abortions.

And I do believe I CAN dictate where the dice land in this instance. I know that I am pregnant and you do not. That gives me full control of the situation and gives you zero control.

Now that we've agreed on reality, tell me about your punishments for the women, please.


----------



## BWK

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro lifers tend to get very hazy when talking about making abortions illegal. What you fail to remember is that the only people being punished are MD's who perform them. Do you really think that the USA would be a better place if more MD's are in prison? Secondly, it is all academic anyway, because MD's would just go back to doing D&C's again, like they did before Roe. So, what have you accomplished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you want to go back to the Middle Ages, when even the mother would forfeit her freedom, or life, because that was when the church ruled the world. There was no punishment for the mother in the US before Roe. Maybe bring back burning at the stake?
Click to expand...

What a bunch of nuts.


----------



## Vandalshandle

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally some acknowledgement of a tiny bit of reality. No law will prevent abortions.
> 
> And I do believe I CAN dictate where the dice land in this instance. I know that I am pregnant and you do not. That gives me full control of the situation and gives you zero control.
> 
> Now that we've agreed on reality, tell me about your punishments for the women, please.
Click to expand...


I think it has to do with wearing a scarlet A on her breast the rest of her life.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
Click to expand...


It's not 'my' debate, it's the abortion debate overall. And I don't blame you for being tired of this debate, it does get tiring.  But I hope that at some point you will try to set aside your preconceived ideas and do some honest introspection. I was once on the other side of this debate, and eventually I changed my mind. It happens, more than you think.   I'm not saying you will, but when it comes to ANYTHING, pride and stubbornness are blinding, and prevents one from learning and growing.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No. They have no legitimacy to demand that I murder anyone, especially on their behalf. They're just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers, who write opinions on paper, and back them with violence. I have no moral or ethical obligation to do anything they demand of me, and in fact, if they demand that I initiate force against someone else, I have a moral and ethical obligation NOT to do as I'm told._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, good for you! So, I have now established that at least one of your ethics is as valid as mine! Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You seem to be confusing moral with ethical. Ethics are objective, morals are dependent on the individual. This means that the statement "Your ethics" is nonsensical at best._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, Pumpkin, just how many angels CAN dance of the head of a pin?
Click to expand...

_Completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. I suppose you think that if you fling enough snark at people, they'll momentarily forget how ignorant your pathetic excuse for argumentation is._


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL have not come to the realization that laws do not prevent unacceptable actions, they punish them.
> 
> So yes, if abortion were to become illegal, many women would likely still pursue them. You'll always be able to roll the dice - you will NOT be able to dictate how they land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pro lifers tend to get very hazy when talking about making abortions illegal. What you fail to remember is that the only people being punished are MD's who perform them. Do you really think that the USA would be a better place if more MD's are in prison? Secondly, it is all academic anyway, because MD's would just go back to doing D&C's again, like they did before Roe. So, what have you accomplished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you want to go back to the Middle Ages, when even the mother would forfeit her freedom, or life, because that was when the church ruled the world. There was no punishment for the mother in the US before Roe. Maybe bring back burning at the stake?
Click to expand...


What part of "Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison." did you not understand? 

Yes. Both doctor, mother, and anyone else involved should be treated as murderers. Unlike you Mengelites I value the sanctity of life, and I believe if you maliciously take one your own life should be forfeit.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.



Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.

Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?
> 
> 
> 
> _No. They have no legitimacy to demand that I murder anyone, especially on their behalf. They're just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers, who write opinions on paper, and back them with violence. I have no moral or ethical obligation to do anything they demand of me, and in fact, if they demand that I initiate force against someone else, I have a moral and ethical obligation NOT to do as I'm told._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, good for you! So, I have now established that at least one of your ethics is as valid as mine! Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You seem to be confusing moral with ethical. Ethics are objective, morals are dependent on the individual. This means that the statement "Your ethics" is nonsensical at best._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, Pumpkin, just how many angels CAN dance of the head of a pin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. I suppose you think that if you fling enough snark at people, they'll momentarily forget how ignorant your pathetic excuse for argumentation is._
Click to expand...



I am a pragmatic, Pumpkin. If you want to talk about my post 1629, feel free. I am not even a little interested in parsing sentences and words of ethical philosophy, which leads nowhere.


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
Click to expand...

Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.

Tell you what, let's not beat around the bush, and get started with my basic argument; 
*I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.

Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.
*
When you think you have an intelligent counter argument to this one, please, bring it on.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
Click to expand...


The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> It's not 'my' debate, it's the abortion debate overall. And I don't blame you for being tired of this debate, it does get tiring.  But I hope that at some point you will try to set aside your preconceived ideas and do some honest introspection. I was once on the other side of this debate, and eventually I changed my mind. It happens, more than you think.   I'm not saying you will, but when it comes to ANYTHING, pride and stubbornness are blinding, and prevents one from learning and growing.



Oh gosh no! Have you not comprehended anything I've said? Let me make it crystal clear.

I will NEVER allow state control of my reproductive system. N.E.V.E.R. I will fight you with every fiber of my being and every weapon available to me if you try to take that control from me.

Is that clear?


----------



## SweetSue92

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
Click to expand...


Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that. 

There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _No. They have no legitimacy to demand that I murder anyone, especially on their behalf. They're just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers, who write opinions on paper, and back them with violence. I have no moral or ethical obligation to do anything they demand of me, and in fact, if they demand that I initiate force against someone else, I have a moral and ethical obligation NOT to do as I'm told._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, good for you! So, I have now established that at least one of your ethics is as valid as mine! Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You seem to be confusing moral with ethical. Ethics are objective, morals are dependent on the individual. This means that the statement "Your ethics" is nonsensical at best._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, Pumpkin, just how many angels CAN dance of the head of a pin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. I suppose you think that if you fling enough snark at people, they'll momentarily forget how ignorant your pathetic excuse for argumentation is._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am a pragmatic, Pumpkin. If you want to talk about my post 1629, feel free. I am not even a little interested in parsing sentences and words of ethical philosophy, which leads nowhere.
Click to expand...

_Claiming to be pragmatic isn't an argument, it holds no explanatory power, it's just a buzzword. If you're not open to discussion, you should have erased your post instead of replying, you'd have saved yourself some embarrassment._


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
Click to expand...


Fortunately, they still train gynecologists to do D&C's, so even Hobby Lobby will have to start paying their employees through their insurance plan to have this done. Personally, I appreciate the irony!


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'my' debate, it's the abortion debate overall. And I don't blame you for being tired of this debate, it does get tiring.  But I hope that at some point you will try to set aside your preconceived ideas and do some honest introspection. I was once on the other side of this debate, and eventually I changed my mind. It happens, more than you think.   I'm not saying you will, but when it comes to ANYTHING, pride and stubbornness are blinding, and prevents one from learning and growing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gosh no! Have you not comprehended anything I've said? Let me make it crystal clear.
> 
> I will NEVER allow state control of my reproductive system. N.E.V.E.R. I will fight you with every fiber of my being and every weapon available to me if you try to take that control from me.
> 
> Is that clear?
Click to expand...


The state already controls you, moonbat. We've been over this already. Your desperation is showing again.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
Click to expand...


I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.

Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'my' debate, it's the abortion debate overall. And I don't blame you for being tired of this debate, it does get tiring.  But I hope that at some point you will try to set aside your preconceived ideas and do some honest introspection. I was once on the other side of this debate, and eventually I changed my mind. It happens, more than you think.   I'm not saying you will, but when it comes to ANYTHING, pride and stubbornness are blinding, and prevents one from learning and growing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gosh no! Have you not comprehended anything I've said? Let me make it crystal clear.
> 
> I will NEVER allow state control of my reproductive system. N.E.V.E.R. I will fight you with every fiber of my being and every weapon available to me if you try to take that control from me.
> 
> Is that clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state already controls you, moonbat. We've been over this already. Your desperation is showing again.
Click to expand...


No. I am still in full control of my uterus.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.
> 
> Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.
Click to expand...


By all means, continue. Those fat sexless hags running around in pussy hats have surely been a boon for your cause...


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'my' debate, it's the abortion debate overall. And I don't blame you for being tired of this debate, it does get tiring.  But I hope that at some point you will try to set aside your preconceived ideas and do some honest introspection. I was once on the other side of this debate, and eventually I changed my mind. It happens, more than you think.   I'm not saying you will, but when it comes to ANYTHING, pride and stubbornness are blinding, and prevents one from learning and growing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gosh no! Have you not comprehended anything I've said? Let me make it crystal clear.
> 
> I will NEVER allow state control of my reproductive system. N.E.V.E.R. I will fight you with every fiber of my being and every weapon available to me if you try to take that control from me.
> 
> Is that clear?
Click to expand...


Hahaha.  Woooooosh, the point went right over your head!    But you actually proved my point that stubborn pride is blinding. Good job!

As for what you said, many people have been where you are.   Regardless of whether or not you ever admit it, you WILL eventually learn that you're wrong. Mark my words.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'my' debate, it's the abortion debate overall. And I don't blame you for being tired of this debate, it does get tiring.  But I hope that at some point you will try to set aside your preconceived ideas and do some honest introspection. I was once on the other side of this debate, and eventually I changed my mind. It happens, more than you think.   I'm not saying you will, but when it comes to ANYTHING, pride and stubbornness are blinding, and prevents one from learning and growing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gosh no! Have you not comprehended anything I've said? Let me make it crystal clear.
> 
> I will NEVER allow state control of my reproductive system. N.E.V.E.R. I will fight you with every fiber of my being and every weapon available to me if you try to take that control from me.
> 
> Is that clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state already controls you, moonbat. We've been over this already. Your desperation is showing again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I am still in full control of my uterus.
Click to expand...


Really? Go sell it on a street corner then. Let us know how that works out.


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
Click to expand...

Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;  
*I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.

Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.
*


----------



## NotYourBody

SweetSue92 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
Click to expand...

Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.

That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.
> 
> Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, continue. Those fat sexless hags running around in pussy hats have surely been a boon for your cause...
Click to expand...

I will continue.


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
Click to expand...


You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as hell expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.


----------



## SweetSue92

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.*
Click to expand...


If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
Click to expand...


Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".


----------



## Vandalshandle

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.
> 
> Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, continue. Those fat sexless hags running around in pussy hats have surely been a boon for your cause...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will continue.
Click to expand...


I think that we have pretty much cleared the board, other than the new kid, Satrebil, who has already outed himself as a RW radical. I think it is about time to wreck havoc somewhere else.


----------



## BWK

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as he'll expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.
Click to expand...

What they want is a little of this;


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
Click to expand...




SweetSue92 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.
Click to expand...

It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.


----------



## NotYourBody

SweetSue92 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
Click to expand...

Indeed you cannot control my reproductive system. I will not allow it. 

Not an argument. A fact.


----------



## dblack

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.
> 
> Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.
Click to expand...

And you're not alone. Anyone who cares about freedom will be fighting with you.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.
> 
> Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, continue. Those fat sexless hags running around in pussy hats have surely been a boon for your cause...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that we have pretty much cleared the board, other than the new kid, Satrebil, who has already outed himself as a RW radical. I think it is about time to wreck havoc somewhere else.
Click to expand...


That's funny.  You haven't done anything of the sort, because almost NONE of you proaborts on this thread have presented any decent arguments or debated this topic in a remotely logical way.

As Sue said, all we have from NotYourBody is repeated "You can't make me" responses on the level of a 5 year old.  No arguments or debates whatsoever.

From a few others, all we have are red herrings like, "but pro-lifers don't care born people"

Then we have BWK who has proven the OP correct with the inane talking point that the z/e/f is not a human.

And you, who post snarky one-liners, in lieu of actual arguments. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen much actual debating from you.

I've been debating this topic for many years and I HAVE actually seen some decent debaters on the other side. The kind who understand logic and debate with some intelligence and sincerity.

I hate to say it, but this thread has been the WORST ever abortion "debate" (if you can call it that) from proaborts that I have ever seen.

The funny thing is, you all proved the OP correct.  So in that sense, I guess the thread is done, THANK YOU for proving the OP correct.


----------



## BWK

In the meantime, my argument was too much for SweetSue92 to handle. Her response hardly made sense. There problem is, they cannot lock horns with the truth, the science, the religion, and their own emotional confusion.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed you cannot control my reproductive system. I will not allow it.
> 
> Not an argument. A fact.
Click to expand...

There are some folks out there who are sure desperate in doing it though.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> I guess the thread is done,



I'm glad you are recognizing the limits of your control over another person's reproduction. It's always best to deal in reality.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.
> 
> Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, continue. Those fat sexless hags running around in pussy hats have surely been a boon for your cause...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that we have pretty much cleared the board, other than the new kid, Satrebil, who has already outed himself as a RW radical. I think it is about time to wreck havoc somewhere else.
Click to expand...


You only looked the misguided old fool you are


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the thread is done,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you are recognizing the limits of your control over another person's reproduction. It's always best to deal in reality.
Click to expand...


Well, I can see we can add dishonesty to your long list of horrible qualities.

No, the part of my quote you cut out was: if this thread is done, it's because you all proved the OP correct.

This has been the worst "debate" from proaborts that I've ever seen.  And I've been in tons of abortion debates before, so that's saying a lot!


----------



## BWK

Once upon a time boys and girls on the religious hard anti-abortion Right, there was an egg and a sperm with living cells in two mature already born human beings. And one day, the two  living cells from the human beings almost got to meet, but they ran past each other and became a bunch of lifeless cells. Anyone on the Right care to explain to the rest of us how that isn't a form of abortion with living cells involved, and secondly, from a scientific and spiritual perspective, had the two actually met, how did you prove life began at that point? And, if you cannot answer that question, may I suggest all these right-wing religious anti-abortion  nuts, take their rightful places towards the back of the bus.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> Hahaha.  Woooooosh, the point went right over your head!    But you actually proved my point that stubborn pride is blinding. Good job!
> 
> As for what you said, many people have been where you are.   Regardless of whether or not you ever admit it, you WILL eventually learn that you're wrong. Mark my words.



Just a little fyi, I'm pretty sure you are incapable of controlling my thoughts, just like you are incapable of controlling my reproductive system.

If you could accept that, you might be happier in your life.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> This has been the worst "debate" from proaborts that I've ever seen.  And I've been in tons of abortion debates before, so that's saying a lot!



It's really hard when people won't allow you a say in their bodily functions, isn't it?


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
Click to expand...

You'll submit to it if it becomes law or you will lose. Fact.  The state doesn't want to control human reproduction, only that all things pertaining to human rights and the handling of human life is done with the humility ,humanity, and dignity that all life deserves. The government is of we the people, and they aren't some separated  entity that takes on a life of it's own, where behind the scenes you find the left controlling the puppet strings.


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately, they still train gynecologists to do D&C's, so even Hobby Lobby will have to start paying their employees through their insurance plan to have this done. Personally, I appreciate the irony!
Click to expand...

And YOU specifically sad "there is no such thing as pro-abortion. With every post you show us all that you are a liar.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> You'll submit to it if it becomes law or you will lose. Fact.  The state doesn't want to control human reproduction, only that all things pertaining to human rights and the handling of human life is done with the humanity and dignity that all life deserves.



How you gonna make me submit? Details.


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.
> 
> Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.


Yep. He reveals himself to be a guy even though he says he's not. Probably another of Basque's multiple personalities got loose!


----------



## Death Angel

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as hell expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.
Click to expand...

Translation: I cant kill my baby up to, and beyond birth. I now live in a totalitarian state!


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.
> 
> Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. He reveals himself to be a guy even though he says he's not. Probably another of Basque's multiple personalities got loose!
Click to expand...

You think only men have second amendment rights? Really? 

You think all woman are so weak we'll submit to all your demands because you say we must? 

Help me Rhonda! Is THIS how pro-life women behave?


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been the worst "debate" from proaborts that I've ever seen.  And I've been in tons of abortion debates before, so that's saying a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really hard when people won't allow you a say in their bodily functions, isn't it?
Click to expand...


If you actually believed the crap you're spouting, you would not be doing the very thing you claim to stand for, to someone else.

YOU are violating the bodily autonomy of another living being, while out of the other side of your mouth constantly claiming everyone is out to get you.  You're not the victim.  No one cares about YOUR body. We care about the innocent, namely the one you think you can control.

So every time you bring up that strawman (which you have about 50,000 times on this thread) I'm going to turn it right back around on you.  You believe in autonomy?  Respect the bodily autonomy of others.  But of course you won't, because you have zero grasp of logic or ethics, and you don't care about anything but yourself.


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
Click to expand...

Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  Woooooosh, the point went right over your head!    But you actually proved my point that stubborn pride is blinding. Good job!
> 
> As for what you said, many people have been where you are.   Regardless of whether or not you ever admit it, you WILL eventually learn that you're wrong. Mark my words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a little fyi, I'm pretty sure you are incapable of controlling my thoughts, just like you are incapable of controlling my reproductive system.
> 
> If you could accept that, you might be happier in your life.
Click to expand...

They're miserable because they can't.


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
Click to expand...

Exactly, once you create a child, it's already been born. Get a clue.


----------



## buttercup

Death Angel said:


> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.



THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:

For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*

You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
*
So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been the worst "debate" from proaborts that I've ever seen.  And I've been in tons of abortion debates before, so that's saying a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really hard when people won't allow you a say in their bodily functions, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you actually believed the crap you're spouting, you would not be doing the very thing you claim to stand for, to someone else.
> 
> YOU are violating the bodily autonomy of another living being, while out of the other side of your mouth constantly claiming everyone is out to get you.  You're not the victim.  No one cares about YOUR body. We care about the innocent, namely the one you think you can control.
> 
> So every time you bring up that strawman (which you have about 50,000 times on this thread) I'm going to turn it right back around on you.  You believe in autonomy?  Respect the bodily autonomy of others.  But of course you won't, because you have zero grasp of logic or ethics, and you don't care about anything but yourself.
Click to expand...

I've never claimed everyone is out to get me! How did you come to that conclusion? It's only you people who think you have the right to force me to bear a pregnancy to term. Nobody else is out to get me. Only you and your ilk.

Oh I don't THINK I control it. I KNOW I control it. You have not made any argument that I do not.

I'll tell you exactly what I don't care about. YOU. I don't care about what YOU want to happen with my pregnancy.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
Click to expand...

I've never been anything but honest. I will N.E.V.E.R allow you, or anyone else, to control my body or any FETUS inside of it.

Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## dblack

Death Angel said:


> After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system."


A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  it's very much a part of a women's body.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been the worst "debate" from proaborts that I've ever seen.  And I've been in tons of abortion debates before, so that's saying a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really hard when people won't allow you a say in their bodily functions, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you actually believed the crap you're spouting, you would not be doing the very thing you claim to stand for, to someone else.
> 
> YOU are violating the bodily autonomy of another living being, while out of the other side of your mouth constantly claiming everyone is out to get you.  You're not the victim.  No one cares about YOUR body. We care about the innocent, namely the one you think you can control.
> 
> So every time you bring up that strawman (which you have about 50,000 times on this thread) I'm going to turn it right back around on you.  You believe in autonomy?  Respect the bodily autonomy of others.  But of course you won't, because you have zero grasp of logic or ethics, and you don't care about anything but yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never claimed anyone is out to get me? How did you come to that conclusion? It's only you people who think you have the right to force me to bear a pregnancy to term. Nobody else is out to get me. Only you and your ilk.
> 
> Oh I don't THINK I control it. I KNOW I control it. You have not made any argument that I do not.
> 
> I'll tell you exactly what I don't care about. YOU. I don't care about what YOU want to happen with my pregnancy.
Click to expand...


Ok, so you're admitting to being a hypocrite.  Your sole "argument" here (which you're not even trying to defend, you even admitted that) is bodily autonomy.  *Yet you support violating the bodily autonomy of someone else. *

Thank you for proving me correct that you're a hypocrite, you've been doing that a lot on this thread.  

Your words are totally empty and meaningless now, because you don't truly care about bodily autonomy, or the Golden Rule.  You have nothing, no argument, no logical or ethical consistency, no care about anything at all, except for yourself.  You are everything that is wrong in this world. You are vile.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
Click to expand...

Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been the worst "debate" from proaborts that I've ever seen.  And I've been in tons of abortion debates before, so that's saying a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really hard when people won't allow you a say in their bodily functions, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you actually believed the crap you're spouting, you would not be doing the very thing you claim to stand for, to someone else.
> 
> YOU are violating the bodily autonomy of another living being, while out of the other side of your mouth constantly claiming everyone is out to get you.  You're not the victim.  No one cares about YOUR body. We care about the innocent, namely the one you think you can control.
> 
> So every time you bring up that strawman (which you have about 50,000 times on this thread) I'm going to turn it right back around on you.  You believe in autonomy?  Respect the bodily autonomy of others.  But of course you won't, because you have zero grasp of logic or ethics, and you don't care about anything but yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never claimed anyone is out to get me? How did you come to that conclusion? It's only you people who think you have the right to force me to bear a pregnancy to term. Nobody else is out to get me. Only you and your ilk.
> 
> Oh I don't THINK I control it. I KNOW I control it. You have not made any argument that I do not.
> 
> I'll tell you exactly what I don't care about. YOU. I don't care about what YOU want to happen with my pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're admitting to being a hypocrite.  Your sole "argument" here (which you're not even trying to defend, you even admitted that) is bodily autonomy.  *Yet you support violating the bodily autonomy of someone else. *
> 
> Thank you for proving me correct that you're a hypocrite, you've been doing that a lot on this thread.
> 
> Your words are totally empty and meaningless now, because you don't truly care about bodily autonomy, or the Golden Rule.  You have nothing, no argument, no logical or ethical consistency, no care about anything at all, except for yourself.  You are everything that is wrong in this world. You are vile.
Click to expand...


Okay.


----------



## dblack

Death Angel said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as hell expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I cant kill my baby up to, and beyond birth. I now live in a totalitarian state!
Click to expand...

A government that claims authority over the contents of your body is crossing a line, and is inevitably totalitarian in nature. All you have to do is work through how all this would be enforced to see it.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  is very much a part of a women's body.



Definition of CHILD







And no, the preborn is not "part" of the mother's body, unless you think a person can have 2 unique sets of DNA, 2 different blood types,  2 beating hearts, 4 arms and 4 legs, etc.  Come on now, you're once against proving the OP correct.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.
> 
> Wow. So much fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll submit to it if it becomes law or you will lose. Fact.  The state doesn't want to control human reproduction, only that all things pertaining to human rights and the handling of human life is done with the humility ,humanity, and dignity that all life deserves. The government is of we the people, and they aren't some separated  entity that takes on a life of it's own, where behind the scenes you find the left controlling the puppet strings.
Click to expand...

When did you prove it was the beginning of life again?


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
Click to expand...







I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  is very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CHILD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no, the preborn is not "part" of the mother's body, unless you think a person can have 2 unique sets of DNA, 2 different blood types,  2 beating hearts, 4 arms and 4 legs, etc.  Come on now, you're once against proving the OP correct.
Click to expand...


Nope. A fetus isn't a child,  and it should never be afforded legal rights apart from those of its owner. To do so is insane and creates a bizarre legal environment where pregnant women are treated as state property.


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as hell expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I cant kill my baby up to, and beyond birth. I now live in a totalitarian state!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government that claims authority over the contents of your body is crossing a line, and is inevitably totalitarian in nature. All you have to do is work through how all this would be enforced to see it.
Click to expand...


The government already claims authority over your body you idiot. There are laws regulating everything from prostitution to drug usage to the god damn draft. Quit talking out of your ass.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> Nope. A fetus isn't a child,



Definition of CHILD


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never been anything but honest. I will N.E.V.E.R allow you, or anyone else, to control my body or any FETUS inside of it.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

You can bet your rear end they will try. And once they do that, they'll go to the next step. Full control and power over women is what the radicals are looking for. And never think they don't want it. The radical Right has big plans. I mean big plans. And none of those plans are good for you and I.


----------



## BWK

satrebil said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as hell expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I cant kill my baby up to, and beyond birth. I now live in a totalitarian state!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government that claims authority over the contents of your body is crossing a line, and is inevitably totalitarian in nature. All you have to do is work through how all this would be enforced to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government already claims authority over your body you idiot. There are laws regulating everything from prostitution to drug usage to the god damn draft. Quit talking out of your ass.
Click to expand...

The government doesn't outlaw abortion.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...


If I needed make an argument about WHY I need to protect my body from you, I would. I don't. 

I only need to remind you that you don't even have a way to know I am pregnant in the first place. 

And don't pretend you want nothing to do with my body. It makes your argument less than stupid. Try to be honest.

You want to force physical changes to MY BODY. For life. Lifetime changes happen to a woman's body when she gives birth. 

I'll never allow you to take that control from me. You'll have to know I'm pregnant first, then you'll have to find me, then you'll  have to fight me. And there are a lot of women like me. You should start training and planning now.


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as hell expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.
Click to expand...


Your beta male soyboys and fat shrieking feminazis will surely have us all quaking in our boots.


----------



## NotYourBody

BWK said:


> You can bet your rear end they will try. And once they do that, they'll go to the next step. Full control and power over women is what the radicals are looking for. And never think they don't want it. The radical Right has big plans. I mean big plans. And none of those plans are good for you and I.


I agree completely!

It's why I will never stop informing them if they want control of my body, they will have to FIGHT me for it. Literally.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> I've never been anything but honest. I will N.E.V.E.R allow you, or anyone else, to control my body or any FETUS inside of it.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you?



Your words mean nothing.  You are a proven hypocrite, you have no respect for the lives of others, yet you want people to respect your life. Thankfully, contrary to what your lost mind thinks, you are NOT in control.  You never were and never will be.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can bet your rear end they will try. And once they do that, they'll go to the next step. Full control and power over women is what the radicals are looking for. And never think they don't want it. The radical Right has big plans. I mean big plans. And none of those plans are good for you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely!
> 
> It's why I will never stop informing them if they want control of my body, they will have to FIGHT me for it. Literally.
Click to expand...

 Good for you. Keep fighting. If you don't, they'll take your rights from you.


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  is very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CHILD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no, the preborn is not "part" of the mother's body, unless you think a person can have 2 unique sets of DNA, 2 different blood types,  2 beating hearts, 4 arms and 4 legs, etc.  Come on now, you're once against proving the OP correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. A fetus isn't a child,  and it should never be afforded legal rights apart from those of its owner. To do so is insane and creates a bizarre legal environment where pregnant women are treated as state property.
Click to expand...


Well, you better get on the phone with a shitload of judges and inform them that all of the fetal homicide suspects they've sentenced were innocent & demand their release from prison. 

Hop to it.


----------



## satrebil

BWK said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as hell expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I cant kill my baby up to, and beyond birth. I now live in a totalitarian state!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government that claims authority over the contents of your body is crossing a line, and is inevitably totalitarian in nature. All you have to do is work through how all this would be enforced to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government already claims authority over your body you idiot. There are laws regulating everything from prostitution to drug usage to the god damn draft. Quit talking out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government doesn't outlaw abortion.
Click to expand...


Yet.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
Click to expand...


I've noticed a pattern in you. You constantly project, and you live in upside-down land.

You claim the preborn isn't alive,  then when the inanity of that is pointed out, you respond with a school-yard level reply, akin to "I know you are but what am I?"

Your 'arguments' are horrible. Deal with it.  And btw, I will openly admit that there ARE 1 or 2 decent arguments on the proabort side.  The funny thing is, I haven't seen any of them on this thread.  I won't help you out by telling you what they are, but dealing with these inane ones is getting old, so I'll let others deal with you, if they want to.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been anything but honest. I will N.E.V.E.R allow you, or anyone else, to control my body or any FETUS inside of it.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words mean nothing.  You are a proven hypocrite, you have no respect for the lives of others, yet you want people to respect your life. Thankfully, contrary to what your lost mind thinks, you are NOT in control.  You never were and never will be.
Click to expand...

There you go again with that "lives" nonsense. We'll start calling you God. Lol! What a joke.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been anything but honest. I will N.E.V.E.R allow you, or anyone else, to control my body or any FETUS inside of it.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words mean nothing.  You are a proven hypocrite, you have no respect for the lives of others, yet you want people to respect your life. Thankfully, contrary to what your lost mind thinks, you are NOT in control.  You never were and never will be.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you respect me or not, just to be clear.

Not your body, not your control. If God wants to stop me from getting an abortion, he will do that.


----------



## BWK

satrebil said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as hell expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I cant kill my baby up to, and beyond birth. I now live in a totalitarian state!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government that claims authority over the contents of your body is crossing a line, and is inevitably totalitarian in nature. All you have to do is work through how all this would be enforced to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government already claims authority over your body you idiot. There are laws regulating everything from prostitution to drug usage to the god damn draft. Quit talking out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government doesn't outlaw abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet.
Click to expand...

Yea, we know what government your looking for;


----------



## BWK

satrebil said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  is very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CHILD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no, the preborn is not "part" of the mother's body, unless you think a person can have 2 unique sets of DNA, 2 different blood types,  2 beating hearts, 4 arms and 4 legs, etc.  Come on now, you're once against proving the OP correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. A fetus isn't a child,  and it should never be afforded legal rights apart from those of its owner. To do so is insane and creates a bizarre legal environment where pregnant women are treated as state property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you better get on the phone with a shitload of judges and inform them that all of the fetal homicide suspects they've sentenced were innocent & demand their release from prison.
> 
> Hop to it.
Click to expand...

Homicides? You ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## satrebil

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
Click to expand...


If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE. 

But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?


----------



## Death Angel

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been anything but honest. I will N.E.V.E.R allow you, or anyone else, to control my body or any FETUS inside of it.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words mean nothing.  You are a proven hypocrite, you have no respect for the lives of others, yet you want people to respect your life. Thankfully, contrary to what your lost mind thinks, you are NOT in control.  You never were and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with that "lives" nonsense. We'll start calling you God. Lol! What a joke.
Click to expand...

You've been thoroughly defeated several times and you know it. You're out of anything like rational replies


----------



## satrebil

BWK said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I cant kill my baby up to, and beyond birth. I now live in a totalitarian state!
> 
> 
> 
> A government that claims authority over the contents of your body is crossing a line, and is inevitably totalitarian in nature. All you have to do is work through how all this would be enforced to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government already claims authority over your body you idiot. There are laws regulating everything from prostitution to drug usage to the god damn draft. Quit talking out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government doesn't outlaw abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, we know what government your looking for;
Click to expand...


A government that protects innocent life? Absolutely. You can blow your fear-mongering smoke up someone else's ass.


----------



## Death Angel

BWK said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  is very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CHILD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no, the preborn is not "part" of the mother's body, unless you think a person can have 2 unique sets of DNA, 2 different blood types,  2 beating hearts, 4 arms and 4 legs, etc.  Come on now, you're once against proving the OP correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. A fetus isn't a child,  and it should never be afforded legal rights apart from those of its owner. To do so is insane and creates a bizarre legal environment where pregnant women are treated as state property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you better get on the phone with a shitload of judges and inform them that all of the fetal homicide suspects they've sentenced were innocent & demand their release from prison.
> 
> Hop to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homicides? You ain't seen nothing yet.
Click to expand...

Pro-aborts resorting to FICTION


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been anything but honest. I will N.E.V.E.R allow you, or anyone else, to control my body or any FETUS inside of it.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words mean nothing.  You are a proven hypocrite, you have no respect for the lives of others, yet you want people to respect your life. Thankfully, contrary to what your lost mind thinks, you are NOT in control.  You never were and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if you respect me or not, just to be clear.
> 
> Not your body, not your control. If God wants to stop me from getting an abortion, he will do that.
Click to expand...


Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control. Hopefully one day you'll learn to apply the same ethics to others that you constantly claim people should apply to you.


----------



## NotYourBody

172 pages of word vomit and I am still in complete control of my uterus including any and all contents inside.

No law will ever take that from me. You don't have a choice but to accept that reality.

You should concentrate your efforts on all those frozen embryos. Maybe you can save them. There are en estimated 1,000,000. You should probably start now.


----------



## SweetSue92

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.
Click to expand...


What is your justification for killing a unique human life in the womb?


----------



## SweetSue92

BWK said:


> In the meantime, my argument was too much for SweetSue92 to handle. Her response hardly made sense. There problem is, they cannot lock horns with the truth, the science, the religion, and their own emotional confusion.



What is your justification for taking a unique human life?


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll submit to it if it becomes law or you will lose. Fact.  The state doesn't want to control human reproduction, only that all things pertaining to human rights and the handling of human life is done with the humanity and dignity that all life deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna make me submit? Details.
Click to expand...


Are you an actual child? As in, not yet even 18? Because you reason like a child.


----------



## NotYourBody

SweetSue92 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll submit to it if it becomes law or you will lose. Fact.  The state doesn't want to control human reproduction, only that all things pertaining to human rights and the handling of human life is done with the humanity and dignity that all life deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna make me submit? Details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an actual child? As in, not yet even 18? Because you reason like a child.
Click to expand...

You're the one who refuses to accept reality. Much like a child.


----------



## dblack

SweetSue92 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your justification for killing a unique human life in the womb?
Click to expand...

None is needed. Why do you think it's your business?


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:
			
		

> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.



Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately, they still train gynecologists to do D&C's, so even Hobby Lobby will have to start paying their employees through their insurance plan to have this done. Personally, I appreciate the irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU specifically sad "there is no such thing as pro-abortion. With every post you show us all that you are a liar.
Click to expand...


Surely, I don't have to explain to you that none of us are advocating that people get an abortion. We are advocating that people have a CHOICE.


----------



## Vandalshandle

NotYourBody said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll submit to it if it becomes law or you will lose. Fact.  The state doesn't want to control human reproduction, only that all things pertaining to human rights and the handling of human life is done with the humanity and dignity that all life deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna make me submit? Details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an actual child? As in, not yet even 18? Because you reason like a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who refuses to accept reality. Much like a child.
Click to expand...



I posted this about 40 pages ago, but I guess I must do it again, because they just don't get it. 

If my wife or child wanted an abortion, I would find a doctor in my state to do it. if I could not find one in my state, I would find a doctor who would do a D&C. If I could not find one, I would take my wife or child to other state. If I still could not find one, I would take my wife or child to another country. And, like you, there is absolutely no way that any of them is ever going to keep me from doing that.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
Click to expand...


No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
Click to expand...


Slave owners. Yes, that is your mentality. Claiming control of my body is what slavery is all about.
I'm glad you recognize that.


----------



## jillian

SweetSue92 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, my argument was too much for SweetSue92 to handle. Her response hardly made sense. There problem is, they cannot lock horns with the truth, the science, the religion, and their own emotional confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your justification for taking a unique human life?
Click to expand...

What is your justification for thinking you are smart enough to solve complicated problems?


----------



## wamose

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
Click to expand...

If your body contains a human with a heartbeat and feelings, You're a murderer if you kill tat child..


----------



## Vandalshandle

wamose said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your body contains a human with a heartbeat and feelings, You're a murderer if you kill tat child..
Click to expand...


...and, yet, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, on several different levels. but, keep swinging, kid!


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slave owners. Yes, that is your mentality. Claiming control of my body is what slavery is all about.
> I'm glad you recognize that.
Click to expand...


Do you have an original thought in your head? Just like BWK earlier, your responses are akin to “I know you are but what am I?”  In fact everything you have said on this thread is on the level of a five-year-old child.

 I could list numerous ways why you are exactly like a slaveowner. You dehumanize your victim, just as the slaveowners did, to justify killing the victim. You think that you can own another human being, just like the slaveowners did, in this case your own child.  You have zero respect for people who are not like you, just like the slaveowners did. You have zero respect for human life, just like the slaveowners did. You discriminate based on age, size and location, instead of skin color.

 And just like slavery, the barbaric practice of abortion will one day be illegal, because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible  people who grow and evolve past those barbaric, selfish cruel mindsets.  Hopefully one day you will, but  whether you do or not, you’ll eventually learn, as I have been telling you.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slave owners. Yes, that is your mentality. Claiming control of my body is what slavery is all about.
> I'm glad you recognize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an original thought in your head? Just like BWK earlier, your responses are akin to “I know you are but what am I?”  In fact everything you have said on this thread is on the level of a five-year-old child.
> 
> I could list numerous ways why you are exactly like a slaveowner. You dehumanize your victim, just as the slaveowners did, to justify killing the victim. You think that you can own another human being, just like the slave owners did, in this case your own child.  You have zero respect for people who are not like you, just like the slaveowners did. You have zero respect for human life, just like the slaveowners did. You discriminate based on age, size and location, instead of skin color.
> 
> And just like slavery, the barbaric practice of abortion will one day be illegal, because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible  people who grow and evolve past those barbaric, selfish cruel mindsets.  Hopefully one day you will, but  whether you do or not, you’ll eventually learn, as I have been telling you.
Click to expand...


----------



## sparky

buttercup said:


> because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible people



i'd like to opine in the positive , but it's a huge leap for me buttercup......~S~


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slave owners. Yes, that is your mentality. Claiming control of my body is what slavery is all about.
> I'm glad you recognize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an original thought in your head? Just like BWK earlier, your responses are akin to “I know you are but what am I?”  In fact everything you have said on this thread is on the level of a five-year-old child.
> 
> I could list numerous ways why you are exactly like a slaveowner. You dehumanize your victim, just as the slaveowners did, to justify killing the victim. You think that you can own another human being, just like the slave owners did, in this case your own child.  You have zero respect for people who are not like you, just like the slaveowners did. You have zero respect for human life, just like the slaveowners did. You discriminate based on age, size and location, instead of skin color.
> 
> And just like slavery, the barbaric practice of abortion will one day be illegal, because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible  people who grow and evolve past those barbaric, selfish cruel mindsets.  Hopefully one day you will, but  whether you do or not, you’ll eventually learn, as I have been telling you.
Click to expand...

The answer is STILL - 


In addition you will not control my thoughts, but I'm not surprised that you think you can. That's really what has you so worked up. 

Carry on with your foaming at the mouth, your ranting and raving and your agony. It doesn't change a thing and I don't care if you are miserable. That's on you.


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
Click to expand...


Your delusion will lead you into a world of hurt. The aftermath of your idiocy will make Prohibition look like a walk in the park. You can't have the kind of power over people that you want.


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slave owners. Yes, that is your mentality. Claiming control of my body is what slavery is all about.
> I'm glad you recognize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an original thought in your head? Just like BWK earlier, your responses are akin to “I know you are but what am I?”  In fact everything you have said on this thread is on the level of a five-year-old child.
> 
> I could list numerous ways why you are exactly like a slaveowner. You dehumanize your victim, just as the slaveowners did, to justify killing the victim. You think that you can own another human being, just like the slave owners did, in this case your own child.  You have zero respect for people who are not like you, just like the slaveowners did. You have zero respect for human life, just like the slaveowners did. You discriminate based on age, size and location, instead of skin color.
> 
> And just like slavery, the barbaric practice of abortion will one day be illegal, because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible  people who grow and evolve past those barbaric, selfish cruel mindsets.  Hopefully one day you will, but  whether you do or not, you’ll eventually learn, as I have been telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer is STILL -
> 
> 
> In addition you will not control my thoughts, but I'm not surprised that you think you can. That's really what has you so worked up.
> 
> Carry on with your foaming at the mouth, your ranting and raving and your agony. It doesn't change a thing and I don't care if you are miserable. That's on you.
Click to expand...

Projecting again dude? Of course you are.


----------



## buttercup

sparky said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd like to opine in the positive , but it's a huge leap for me buttercup......~S~
Click to expand...


It doesn't take everyone, for change to happen.  We have gotten past numerous things before, and we will again.


----------



## dblack

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slave owners. Yes, that is your mentality. Claiming control of my body is what slavery is all about.
> I'm glad you recognize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an original thought in your head? Just like BWK earlier, your responses are akin to “I know you are but what am I?”  In fact everything you have said on this thread is on the level of a five-year-old child.
> 
> I could list numerous ways why you are exactly like a slaveowner. You dehumanize your victim, just as the slaveowners did, to justify killing the victim. You think that you can own another human being, just like the slave owners did, in this case your own child.  You have zero respect for people who are not like you, just like the slaveowners did. You have zero respect for human life, just like the slaveowners did. You discriminate based on age, size and location, instead of skin color.
> 
> And just like slavery, the barbaric practice of abortion will one day be illegal, because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible  people who grow and evolve past those barbaric, selfish cruel mindsets.  Hopefully one day you will, but  whether you do or not, you’ll eventually learn, as I have been telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer is STILL -
> 
> 
> In addition you will not control my thoughts, but I'm not surprised that you think you can. That's really what has you so worked up.
> 
> Carry on with your foaming at the mouth, your ranting and raving and your agony. It doesn't change a thing and I don't care if you are miserable. That's on you.
Click to expand...


But, but - it's for the children!!!! You didn't build that! ... hmm... where have I heard the kinds of excuses before??


----------



## buttercup




----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SweetSue92 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your justification for killing a unique human life in the womb?
Click to expand...

And yet again: citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

The state has no authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not – it’s her body and her choice, a choice guaranteed by the Constitution.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> [
> Projecting again dude? Of course you are.



I'm totally okay If it somehow comforts you to think that is true.


----------



## buttercup

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your justification for killing a unique human life in the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet again: citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.
> 
> The state has no authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not – it’s her body and her choice, a choice guaranteed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Unless you think all laws are objective absolute truths, never to be questioned, your constant focus on current laws is illogical and a waste of time.   For once, stop hiding behind the law and start arguing from the standpoint of ethics and truth.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> It doesn't take everyone, for change to happen.  We have gotten past numerous things before, and we will again.


Change already happened. Abortion is legal. We are not willing to be MAGA'd back to that bull shit.


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd like to opine in the positive , but it's a huge leap for me buttercup......~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't take everyone, for change to happen.  We have gotten past numerous things before, and we will again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Change already happened. Abortion is legal. We are not willing to be MAGA'd back to that bull shit.
Click to expand...

You will abort yourself out of existence.


----------



## dblack

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd like to opine in the positive , but it's a huge leap for me buttercup......~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't take everyone, for change to happen.  We have gotten past numerous things before, and we will again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Change already happened. Abortion is legal. We are not willing to be MAGA'd back to that bull shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will abort yourself out of existence.
Click to expand...

See.. there you go. No laws required. Sit down and shut up.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> You will abort yourself out of existence.


Then you'll have nothing to worry about. So stop whining about your lack of control.


----------



## buttercup




----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


>



You might want to share that with someone you have a chance to influence. I don't see anyone like that in here.

But I could be wrong.

Is there anyone in here willing to let Buttercup determine her reproductive choices?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

buttercup said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your justification for killing a unique human life in the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet again: citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.
> 
> The state has no authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not – it’s her body and her choice, a choice guaranteed by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you think all laws are objective absolute truths, never to be questioned, your constant focus on current laws is illogical and a waste of time.   For once, stop hiding behind the law and start arguing from the standpoint of ethics and truth.
Click to expand...


Jones is an obedient government stooge


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to share that with someone you have a chance to influence. I don't see anyone like that in here.
> 
> But I could be wrong.
> 
> Is there anyone in here willing to let Buttercup determine her reproductive choices?
Click to expand...


It wasn't posted to you. I already know that you literally don't care about anything but yourself.  Many people read these threads though, who are far more objective and intellectually honest than someone like you.  So posting here is not a total waste of time.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to share that with someone you have a chance to influence. I don't see anyone like that in here.
> 
> But I could be wrong.
> 
> Is there anyone in here willing to let Buttercup determine her reproductive choices?
Click to expand...


Oh, and once again, your use of the phrase "reproductive choices" yet again shows that you're either incredibly dense, or dishonest.

No one is taking away your "reproductive choices."  You are free to have as many babies as you want. And you are free to have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.*

Therefore, you aren't fighting for "reproductive choices" you're fighting for "*killing* choices."  At least be honest.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> It wasn't posted to you. I already know that you literally don't care about anything but yourself.  Many people read these threads though, who are far more objective and intellectually honest than someone like you.  So posting here is not a total waste of time.


I sure hope they get in here to see it before it gets too far gone.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

buttercup said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The 14th Amendment acknowledged the citizenship of former slaves and codified their rights as Americans born in the United States.

Unlike a former slave, an embryo/fetus is not a person born in the United States; as a consequence, it is not a citizen, not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Moreover, because a woman was born in the United States and a citizen of the United States, her right to privacy is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:

‘Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, at least since _Mugler v. Kansas_, 123 U.S. 623, 660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them."' _ibid_

In this case, government actions seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.


----------



## buttercup

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> The 14th Amendment acknowledged the citizenship of former slaves and codified their rights as Americans born in the United States.
> 
> Unlike a former slave, an embryo/fetus is not a person born in the United States; as a consequence, it is not a citizen, not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Moreover, because a woman was born in the United States and a citizen of the United States, her right to privacy is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> ‘Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, at least since _Mugler v. Kansas_, 123 U.S. 623, 660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them."' _ibid_
> 
> In this case, government actions seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
Click to expand...

*sigh*   Did you completely miss my previous post to you?    Hold on, I'll find the # for you in case you missed it.

Here you go: #1746


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> It wasn't posted to you. I already know that you literally don't care about anything but yourself.



Again with the same politics used by the left for their social engineering agenda. Anyone who opposes it is accused of not caring about whatever problem they're addressing. If you oppose government health care, you want poor people to go without. If you oppose "free" college, you hate education. If you opposed an abortion ban, you must be a selfish jerk who loves abortion. 

How does it feel to be a statist liberal?


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to share that with someone you have a chance to influence. I don't see anyone like that in here.
> 
> But I could be wrong.
> 
> Is there anyone in here willing to let Buttercup determine her reproductive choices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and once again, your use of the phrase "reproductive choices" yet again shows that you're either incredibly dense, or dishonest.
> 
> No one is taking away your "reproductive choices."  You are free to have as many babies as you want. And you are free to have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.*
> 
> Therefore, you aren't fighting for "reproductive choices" you're fighting for "*killing* choices."  At least be honest.
Click to expand...


I don't care about your semantics. That's your game. Call it what you want. 

I don't know how much more honest I can be. I've not pretended any other position. But since your so fond of semantics, I'll reword it for you.

I'm fighting to keep you from having any say whatsoever over any and every single cell contained inside my body or inside a fetus that is inside my body.  

Another bit of honesty - it's not a fair fight. You don't know if there is a fetus inside my body. When you can solve that simple bit of reality, come talk to me. I might be willing to listen.


----------



## satrebil

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> an embryo/fetus is not a person born in the United States; as a consequence, it is not a citizen, not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.



Every fucking time you meatheads bring this up, I point out fetal homicide laws. And without fail, none of you morons explain how/why someone can be charged with it if the fetus is not a person with Constitutional protections.


----------



## dblack

NotYourBody said:


> Another bit of honesty - it's not a fair fight. You don't know if there is a fetus inside my body. When you can solve that simple bit of reality, come talk to me. I might be willing to listen.



That's what I'd like to hear more about. Lets hear the gory details of how they plan to enforce abortion bans? beagle9 was upfront about his plans for a large scale re-education program. What else? Will there be mandatory womb monitors?


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't posted to you. I already know that you literally don't care about anything but yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the same politics used by the left for their social engineering agenda. Anyone who opposes it is accused of not caring about whatever problem they're addressing. If you oppose government health care, you want poor people to go without. If you oppose "free" college, you hate education. If you opposed an abortion ban, you must be a selfish jerk who loves abortion.
> 
> How does it feel to be a statist liberal?
Click to expand...


Um, dude, she basically admitted that!   She doesn't even hide the fact that on this issue, she doesn't care about valid arguments, logic, ethics, other people's lives, or anything.


----------



## satrebil

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> a choice guaranteed by the Constitution.



Where? I'm calling you out right now. Show me where the word "abortion" is in the Constitution.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

buttercup said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> The 14th Amendment acknowledged the citizenship of former slaves and codified their rights as Americans born in the United States.
> 
> Unlike a former slave, an embryo/fetus is not a person born in the United States; as a consequence, it is not a citizen, not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Moreover, because a woman was born in the United States and a citizen of the United States, her right to privacy is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> ‘Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, at least since _Mugler v. Kansas_, 123 U.S. 623, 660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them."' _ibid_
> 
> In this case, government actions seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *sigh*   Did you completely miss my previous post to you?    Hold on, I'll find the # for you in case you missed it.
> 
> Here you go: #1746
Click to expand...


You basically are left to deal with 3 or 4 of the dumber proaborts. You're wasting your time...


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> an embryo/fetus is not a person born in the United States; as a consequence, it is not a citizen, not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every fucking time you meatheads bring this up, I point out fetal homicide laws.
Click to expand...


Laws that were pushed through deliberately for the purpose of creating a wedge for the anti-abortionist cause. Not much validation really.


----------



## NotYourBody

dblack said:


> That's what I'd like to hear more about. Lets hear the gory details of how they plan to enforce abortion bans? beagle9 was upfront about his plans for a large scale re-education program. What else? Will there be mandatory womb monitors?


I'm not sure why they are so unwilling to answer this question. Especially since they claim the moral high ground.

I would appreciate more information from beagle9 about the re-education camps. I am quite curious how it would all work.

So lets hear it pro-lifers. How exactly is this going to work?


----------



## dblack

SassyIrishLass said:


> You basically are left to deal with 3 or 4 of the dumber proaborts. You're wasting your time...



Especially if you think we're going to accept your big government, intrusive solution to the problem.


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> an embryo/fetus is not a person born in the United States; as a consequence, it is not a citizen, not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every fucking time you meatheads bring this up, I point out fetal homicide laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws that were pushed through deliberately for the purpose of creating a wedge for the anti-abortionist cause. Not much validation really.
Click to expand...


Fetal homicide laws existed long before Roe v Wade you assclown.


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> an embryo/fetus is not a person born in the United States; as a consequence, it is not a citizen, not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every fucking time you meatheads bring this up, I point out fetal homicide laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws that were pushed through deliberately for the purpose of creating a wedge for the anti-abortionist cause. Not much validation really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fetal homicide laws existed long before Roe v Wade you assclown.
Click to expand...


They've been radical expanded by pro-lifers, dingleberry.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You basically are left to deal with 3 or 4 of the dumber proaborts. You're wasting your time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially if you think we're going to accept your big government, intrusive solution to the problem.
Click to expand...


Seems more than a few states are saying no more. You're losing and don't realize it. Say how about those Trump SCOTUS picks? Lol


----------



## dblack

SassyIrishLass said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You basically are left to deal with 3 or 4 of the dumber proaborts. You're wasting your time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially if you think we're going to accept your big government, intrusive solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more than a few states are saying no more. You're losing and don't realize it
Click to expand...


Oh, we're all losing - for now. Things are going to shit far faster than I ever thought I'd see. But I still hold out hope. The good guys usually win in the end.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Well, we have one poster here who demands that we stop talking about the law, and instead talk about ethics and morality. Then, we have another poster here who demands that we talk about the law. I suggest that Buttercup duke it out with Satrebil, until the bitter end!


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to share that with someone you have a chance to influence. I don't see anyone like that in here.
> 
> But I could be wrong.
> 
> Is there anyone in here willing to let Buttercup determine her reproductive choices?
Click to expand...

You don't see the other HALF of the board, and you don't see the thousands of lurkers who see YOU and the insanity of your indefensible position. People like you make our work easy.


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> You basically are left to deal with 3 or 4 of the dumber proaborts. You're wasting your time...



I keep trying to tell her she's wasting her time. She just doesn't get it.


----------



## Death Angel

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You basically are left to deal with 3 or 4 of the dumber proaborts. You're wasting your time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially if you think we're going to accept your big government, intrusive solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more than a few states are saying no more. You're losing and don't realize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, we're all losing - for now. Things are going to shit far faster than I ever thought I'd see. But I still hold out hope. *The good guys usually win in the end*.
Click to expand...


We will. Trust me. We will.


----------



## buttercup

Question for the proaborts.

When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, did he kill one or two people?


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?



What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???

Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
Click to expand...



Just answer the question.   No more red herrings.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> You don't see the other HALF of the board, and you don't see the thousands of lurkers who see YOU and the insanity of your indefensible position. People like you make our work easy.



You'd think if they were so outraged, they would let that be known. But let's ask them - 

Lurkers? Any input? Don't be shy! I don't bite.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Personally, I don't know any "proaborts".


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> .
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer the question.   No more red herrings.
Click to expand...


Oh, it's easy to answer. Just one. But "pro-abort"? Really? You guys are following the statist playbook to a tee. Fucking hypocrites.


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer the question.   No more red herrings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's easy to answer. Just one. But "pro-abort"? Really? You guys are following the statist playbook to a tee. Fucking hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Wrong. He was convicted of TWO counts of murder - one for his wife, and one for his unborn child. 

Thanks for playing.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer the question.   No more red herrings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's easy to answer. Just one. But "pro-abort"? Really? You guys are following the statist playbook to a tee. Fucking hypocrites.
Click to expand...


I don't use the phrase "pro-choice" because it is deceptive right off the bat.  It doesn't finish the sentence, choice for what???  And since saying "pro-choice for killing" is too long, I'll stick with proabort. Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout. It's either homicide, or not.  If it is, then there is no "personal choice" to kill an innocent human being.

Ok, let's see if any other on your side will answer the question.


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout.



No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.


----------



## buttercup

No other takers on that question?  Come on you fighters for killing rights, why so silent?   NotYourBody?  BWK?

Oh, but thank you to DBlack for answering, even if his answer was wrong.  At least he answered.


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see the other HALF of the board, and you don't see the thousands of lurkers who see YOU and the insanity of your indefensible position. People like you make our work easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think if they were so outraged, they would let that be known. But let's ask them -
> 
> Lurkers? Any input? Don't be shy! I don't bite.
Click to expand...

One or two murders? Quit stalling.


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> Wrong. He was convicted of TWO counts of murder - one for his wife, and one for his unborn child.
> 
> Thanks for playing.



I was asked my opinion, dipshit. My opinion differs with the court. I think they made a mistake. That happens a fair amount. It's certainly the case with your campaign - most of which isn't law yet. Hopefully never will be.


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> Personally, I don't know any "proaborts".


Look in the mirror. I've already exposed your lie.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the term "pro-life" would imply that you oppose the death penalty, and embrace the Quaker rejection of war, under all circumstances. So, that came right back to bite you.
> 
> 
> Just answer the question.   No more red herrings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's easy to answer. Just one. But "pro-abort"? Really? You guys are following the statist playbook to a tee. Fucking hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't use the phrase "pro-choice" because it is deceptive right off the bat.  It doesn't finish the sentence, choice for what???  And since saying "pro-choice for killing" is too long, I'll stick with proabort. Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout. It's either homicide, or not.  If it is, then there is no "personal choice" to kill an innocent human being.
> 
> Ok, let's see if any other on your side will answer the question.
Click to expand...


Ok, so "pro-life" implies that you oppose the death penalty, and reject all war. So that came right back to bite you.


----------



## sealybobo

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?


Bottom line is life isn’t that precious. If it is to you then don’t get an abortion. 

I bet you believe taking the morning after pill is murder. 

If the woman was pregnant and she took the morning after pill and that caused the murder of the baby, you believe that was a life and it was murdered correct?

Most people disagree.

Do you really think the morning after pill is murder? If not why not?


----------



## Death Angel

dblack said:


> Oh, it's easy to answer. Just one. But "pro-abort"? Really? You guys are following the statist playbook to a tee. Fucking hypocrites.


You guys hate the truth, dont you.


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. He was convicted of TWO counts of murder - one for his wife, and one for his unborn child.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asked my opinion, dipshit. My opinion differs with the court. I think they made a mistake. That happens a fair amount. It's certainly the case with your campaign - most of which isn't law yet. Hopefully never will be.
Click to expand...


You disagree with the court, fine. Then I'll ask you again - why aren't you calling up judges and demanding that fetal homicide convicts be released?


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> No other takers on that question?  Come on you fighters for killing rights, why so silent?   NotYourBody?  BWK?
> 
> Oh, but thank you to DBlack for answering, even if his answer was wrong.  At least he answered.



How will you know the homicide happened? If you don't know it happened, how will you stop it? You don't make any sense.


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. He was convicted of TWO counts of murder - one for his wife, and one for his unborn child.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asked my opinion, dipshit. My opinion differs with the court. I think they made a mistake. That happens a fair amount. It's certainly the case with your campaign - most of which isn't law yet. Hopefully never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree with the court, fine. Then I'll ask you again - why aren't you calling up judges and demanding that fetal homicide convicts be released?
Click to expand...


What makes you think I'm not? I'll fight you fascist fucks in every way I can manage.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't know any "proaborts".
> 
> 
> 
> Look in the mirror. I've already exposed your lie.
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, DA, I will defend your right not to abort your child.


----------



## dblack

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other takers on that question?  Come on you fighters for killing rights, why so silent?   NotYourBody?  BWK?
> 
> Oh, but thank you to DBlack for answering, even if his answer was wrong.  At least he answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you know the homicide happened? If you don't know it happened, how will you stop it? You don't make any sense.
Click to expand...


Womb monitors are the only way I can think of. Or maybe they'll have live in 'minders' who keep an eye on women of child-bearing age.


----------



## satrebil

sealybobo said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious. If it is to you then don’t get an abortion.
> 
> I bet you believe taking the morning after pill is murder.
> 
> If the woman was pregnant and she took the morning after pill and that caused the murder of the baby, you believe that was a life and it was murdered correct?
> 
> Most people disagree.
> 
> Do you really think the morning after pill is murder? If not why not?
Click to expand...


"Levonorgestrel is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it."

An Overview of Plan B (the Morning-After Pill)


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other takers on that question?  Come on you fighters for killing rights, why so silent?   NotYourBody?  BWK?
> 
> Oh, but thank you to DBlack for answering, even if his answer was wrong.  At least he answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you know the homicide happened? If you don't know it happened, how will you stop it? You don't make any sense.
Click to expand...


*Facepalm*   Are you completely unfamiliar with the case?  They found her body, she was 8 months pregnant. Everyone knew, when she went missing, that she was 8 months pregnant.

Answer the question. Stop with the neverending red herrings.


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. He was convicted of TWO counts of murder - one for his wife, and one for his unborn child.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asked my opinion, dipshit. My opinion differs with the court. I think they made a mistake. That happens a fair amount. It's certainly the case with your campaign - most of which isn't law yet. Hopefully never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree with the court, fine. Then I'll ask you again - why aren't you calling up judges and demanding that fetal homicide convicts be released?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm not? I'll fight you fascist fucks in every way I can manage.
Click to expand...


Because you're not. You're just a fucking ideologue and it shows. 

BTW, real fascists are the ones who deemed others subhuman and/or inferior... you know, like you pro-aborts do. Baby killing scum, all of you.


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other takers on that question?  Come on you fighters for killing rights, why so silent?   NotYourBody?  BWK?
> 
> Oh, but thank you to DBlack for answering, even if his answer was wrong.  At least he answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you know the homicide happened? If you don't know it happened, how will you stop it? You don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Facepalm*   Are you completely unfamiliar with the case?  They found her body, she was 8 months pregnant. Everyone knew, when she went missing, that she was 8 months pregnant.
> 
> Answer the question. Stop with the neverending red herrings.
Click to expand...


How about you answer her question for a change? You've been dodging it for three days. How are you going to know she's pregnant? You're arguing for laws that will require draconian control of pregnant women to meaningfully enforce. Why don't you want to talk about that?


----------



## buttercup

sealybobo said:


> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.



Wow. Would you say that about your own life?


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. He was convicted of TWO counts of murder - one for his wife, and one for his unborn child.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asked my opinion, dipshit. My opinion differs with the court. I think they made a mistake. That happens a fair amount. It's certainly the case with your campaign - most of which isn't law yet. Hopefully never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree with the court, fine. Then I'll ask you again - why aren't you calling up judges and demanding that fetal homicide convicts be released?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm not? I'll fight you fascist fucks in every way I can manage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're not.
Click to expand...


Guess again.


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. He was convicted of TWO counts of murder - one for his wife, and one for his unborn child.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asked my opinion, dipshit. My opinion differs with the court. I think they made a mistake. That happens a fair amount. It's certainly the case with your campaign - most of which isn't law yet. Hopefully never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree with the court, fine. Then I'll ask you again - why aren't you calling up judges and demanding that fetal homicide convicts be released?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm not? I'll fight you fascist fucks in every way I can manage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess again.
Click to expand...


Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. Provide us with the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and your name. Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.


----------



## NotYourBody

dblack said:


> Womb monitors are the only way I can think of. Or maybe they'll have live in 'minders' who keep an eye on women of child-bearing age.



The womb monitors would have to be installed before the girl started menstruation. Once those eggs start releasing, anything can happen. Some girls start their periods very early, before the age of 10. 

I think it would be too easy to get away from a minder. Too easy to overpower a minder. It would take at least two very large strong minders for each woman I would think. More if they are big girls.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other takers on that question?  Come on you fighters for killing rights, why so silent?   NotYourBody?  BWK?
> 
> Oh, but thank you to DBlack for answering, even if his answer was wrong.  At least he answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you know the homicide happened? If you don't know it happened, how will you stop it? You don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Facepalm*   Are you completely unfamiliar with the case?  They found her body, she was 8 months pregnant. Everyone knew, when she went missing, that she was 8 months pregnant.
> 
> Answer the question. Stop with the neverending red herrings.
Click to expand...

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I wasn't really that interested in your question.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other takers on that question?  Come on you fighters for killing rights, why so silent?   NotYourBody?  BWK?
> 
> Oh, but thank you to DBlack for answering, even if his answer was wrong.  At least he answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you know the homicide happened? If you don't know it happened, how will you stop it? You don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Facepalm*   Are you completely unfamiliar with the case?  They found her body, she was 8 months pregnant. Everyone knew, when she went missing, that she was 8 months pregnant.
> 
> Answer the question. Stop with the neverending red herrings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you answer her question for a change? You've been dodging it for three days. How are you going to know she's pregnant? You're arguing for laws that will require draconian control of pregnant women to meaningfully enforce. Why don't you want to talk about that?
Click to expand...


The reason we haven't talked about that is because that has been used over and over as a red herring or deflection from the actual debate at hand.  If you want to talk about that, start a new thread.

My view is that MANY (not all) young women who have abortions don't know what they're doing.  They have been brainwashed by this messed up society we live in, and taught that there's nothing wrong with abortion.  So in most cases, I actually have sympathy for the young women who end up at the abortion clinic... Many of them are borderline coerced, and feel like they literally have no choice.  Why, because in many cases they aren't given other options.  They aren't shown an ultrasound, in most cases, they aren't told the truth about abortion, they are lied to every step of the way.  And then many of them don't even realize they're doing anything wrong.  Especially the young, naive ones.

I believe that the *abortionists*, the ones who DO know exactly what they're doing, are the ones who should face jail time.  They do it for money.  If you don't believe me, I'll post tons of quotes from former abortionists and clinic workers.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. *Provide us with* the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and *your name.* Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.


And this is how it starts...


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> The reason we haven't talked about that is because that has been used over and over as a red herring or deflection from the actual debate at hand.  If you want to talk about that, start a new thread.
> 
> My view is that MANY (not all) young women who have abortions don't know what they're doing.  They have been brainwashed by this messed up society we live in, and taught that there's nothing wrong with abortion.  So in most cases, I actually have sympathy for the young women who end up at the abortion clinic... Many of them are borderline coerced, and feel like they literally have no choice.  Why, because in many cases they aren't given other options.  They aren't shown an ultrasound, in most cases, they aren't told the truth about abortion, they are lied to every step of the way.  And then many of them don't even realize they're doing anything wrong.  Especially the young, naive ones.
> 
> I believe that the *abortionists*, the ones who DO know exactly what they're doing are the ones who should face jail time.  They do it for money.  If you don't believe me, I'll post tons of quotes from former abortionists and clinic workers.



Holy fuckballs Cletus!!! Do you honestly think in this day and age that a young woman cannot not find every ounce of information that exists in the world about the choices available to her? Right on her cellphone?

Get a clue lady. get a clue.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> I believe that the *abortionists*, the ones who DO know exactly what they're doing, are the ones who should face jail time.  They do it for money.  If you don't believe me, I'll post tons of quotes from former abortionists and clinic workers.



Of course they do it for money. You thought they did it for free?


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. *Provide us with* the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and *your name.* Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is how it starts...
Click to expand...


Yeah, cuz asking someone to prove their claims on a backwater internet forum totally means "the fascists are coming!!!!"

Take your meds.


----------



## Vandalshandle

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. *Provide us with* the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and *your name.* Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is how it starts...
Click to expand...


Personally, I don't make it a practice to reprimand judges for their decisions, since I never completed law school, myself. However, I have no problem ignoring the law, if it is unjust in my opinion. Any law restricting my right to provide for abortions for my family is, in fact, unjust. On the other hand, if the pro-life people are willing to meet me half way and give me the right, in return, to require them to get an abortion, if I so choose, I guess that would be fair.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.....
Click to expand...



There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the *abortionists*, the ones who DO know exactly what they're doing, are the ones who should face jail time.  They do it for money.  If you don't believe me, I'll post tons of quotes from former abortionists and clinic workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do it for money. You thought they did it for free?
Click to expand...


There's your deceptive nature again.  Obviously they get paid, that wasn't the point. The point was that they KNOWINGLY do something heinous and evil, out of greed.  FOR MONEY, as their motivation.

Any other words of mine you want to twist?


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was asked my opinion, dipshit. My opinion differs with the court. I think they made a mistake. That happens a fair amount. It's certainly the case with your campaign - most of which isn't law yet. Hopefully never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree with the court, fine. Then I'll ask you again - why aren't you calling up judges and demanding that fetal homicide convicts be released?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm not? I'll fight you fascist fucks in every way I can manage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. Provide us with the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and your name. Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.
Click to expand...


Fuck you. I'm not about to give out personal details of my life to fascists.


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. *Provide us with* the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and *your name.* Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is how it starts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't make it a practice to reprimand judges for their decisions, since I never completed law school, myself. However, I have no problem ignoring the law, if it is unjust in my opinion. Any law restricting my right to provide for abortions for my family is, in fact, unjust. On the other hand, if the pro-life people are willing to meet me half way and give me the right, in return, to require them to get an abortion, if I so choose, I guess that would be fair.
Click to expand...


Let's see... one scenario saves a life, the other one takes it away. Sure, we'll get right on that...


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree with the court, fine. Then I'll ask you again - why aren't you calling up judges and demanding that fetal homicide convicts be released?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm not? I'll fight you fascist fucks in every way I can manage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. Provide us with the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and your name. Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you. I'm not about to give out personal details of my life to fascists.
Click to expand...


Imagine my surprise


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. *Provide us with* the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and *your name.* Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is how it starts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't make it a practice to reprimand judges for their decisions, since I never completed law school, myself. However, I have no problem ignoring the law, if it is unjust in my opinion. Any law restricting my right to provide for abortions for my family is, in fact, unjust. On the other hand, if the pro-life people are willing to meet me half way and give me the right, in return, to require them to get an abortion, if I so choose, I guess that would be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see... one scenario saves a life, the other one takes it away. Sure, we'll get right on that...
Click to expand...


Yet, both sceneries give the other party the right to take away your right to make the most important decisions in your life. Get it now? I doubt it.


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. *Provide us with* the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and *your name.* Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is how it starts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't make it a practice to reprimand judges for their decisions, since I never completed law school, myself. However, I have no problem ignoring the law, if it is unjust in my opinion. Any law restricting my right to provide for abortions for my family is, in fact, unjust. On the other hand, if the pro-life people are willing to meet me half way and give me the right, in return, to require them to get an abortion, if I so choose, I guess that would be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see... one scenario saves a life, the other one takes it away. Sure, we'll get right on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, both sceneries give the other party the right to take away your right to make the most important decisions in your life. Get it now? I doubt it.
Click to expand...


There's nothing to "get". The child's right to life trumps your 'right' to kill it and you will *never* change my mind.


----------



## beagle9

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'my' debate, it's the abortion debate overall. And I don't blame you for being tired of this debate, it does get tiring.  But I hope that at some point you will try to set aside your preconceived ideas and do some honest introspection. I was once on the other side of this debate, and eventually I changed my mind. It happens, more than you think.   I'm not saying you will, but when it comes to ANYTHING, pride and stubbornness are blinding, and prevents one from learning and growing.
Click to expand...

Good luck trying to convince these individuals who dwell on the dark side of life.

They are terminal.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Then put your money where your mouth is. *Provide us with* the list of judges you've called demanding that fetal-homicide convicts be released, and *your name.* Since it would be a matter of public record it would be easy enough to verify.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is how it starts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't make it a practice to reprimand judges for their decisions, since I never completed law school, myself. However, I have no problem ignoring the law, if it is unjust in my opinion. Any law restricting my right to provide for abortions for my family is, in fact, unjust. On the other hand, if the pro-life people are willing to meet me half way and give me the right, in return, to require them to get an abortion, if I so choose, I guess that would be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see... one scenario saves a life, the other one takes it away. Sure, we'll get right on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, both sceneries give the other party the right to take away your right to make the most important decisions in your life. Get it now? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing to "get". The child's right to life trumps your 'right' to kill it and you will *never* change my mind.
Click to expand...


Well, that works for me, since I am not trying to change your mind, because, as been said before, even if you outlaw abortion, it will take place anyway, and there is absolutely no way that you can stop it. God forbid that you focus on something that would make a difference.


----------



## buttercup

To the ignoramus here who thinks that young women seeking abortion are counseled about all their options in a sincere way, instead of being sold the abortion....

"I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists, nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. *We were doing it for the money.*"

– Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd


“The women are *never allowed to look at the ultrasound *because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion.”

– Dr. Randall “Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet” by David Kuperlain and Mark Masters in Oct “New Dimensions” magazine


"I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and *were just lied to by the abortion counselor*. Namely  'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression."

– Psychologist Vincent Rue, quoted in "Abortion Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimemsions, October 1991


"We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always wanted to know the sex, but *we lied* and said it was too early to tell. It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.' "

– Abortion clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping p 34


"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks *a baby is totally formed,* he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"

– Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28


“Every woman has these same two questions: First, “Is it a baby?” “No” the counselor assures her. “It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)…* How many women would have an abortion, if we told them the truth?*”

– Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four


“If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, *we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort i*mmediately.” 

– Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas


“There was a public health center in a town not far from Denver and they sent a lot of girls to us. They told us they did all the counseling. We weren’t allowed to counsel them or even ask them about birth control. We couldn’t even tell them what could happen during the abortion. Nothing. If we tried to discuss alternatives, we would get in trouble with the doctor because then the health center would threaten to send their business elsewhere. All we did was find out how far along they were, tell them when they were going to be finished, *get their money, do the abortion, and send them home*.”

– Sam Griggs, Registered Nurse


“If you can’t *sell abortions* over the phone, you will not last.” 

– Hellen Pendley, former owner-director of an abortion clinic








​
There are many more quotes like that, but I don't want to turn this into a book here.


----------



## satrebil

You know what I find most interesting about this thread? It's that the most vehement pro-life voices in it are WOMEN. (At least I assume they are by the user names.)

That's really gotta chap the leftist asses.


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is how it starts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't make it a practice to reprimand judges for their decisions, since I never completed law school, myself. However, I have no problem ignoring the law, if it is unjust in my opinion. Any law restricting my right to provide for abortions for my family is, in fact, unjust. On the other hand, if the pro-life people are willing to meet me half way and give me the right, in return, to require them to get an abortion, if I so choose, I guess that would be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see... one scenario saves a life, the other one takes it away. Sure, we'll get right on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, both sceneries give the other party the right to take away your right to make the most important decisions in your life. Get it now? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing to "get". The child's right to life trumps your 'right' to kill it and you will *never* change my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that works for me, since I am not trying to change your mind, because, as been said before, even if you outlaw abortion, it will take place anyway, and there is absolutely no way that you can stop it.
Click to expand...


And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> To the ignoramus here who thinks that young women seeking abortion are counseled about all their options in a sincere way, instead of being sold the abortion....
> 
> "I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists, nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. *We were doing it for the money.*"
> 
> – Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd
> 
> 
> “The women are *never allowed to look at the ultrasound *because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion.”
> 
> – Dr. Randall “Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet” by David Kuperlain and Mark Masters in Oct “New Dimensions” magazine
> 
> 
> "I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and *were just lied to by the abortion counselor*. Namely  'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression."
> 
> – Psychologist Vincent Rue, quoted in "Abortion Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimemsions, October 1991
> 
> 
> "We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always wanted to know the sex, but *we lied* and said it was too early to tell. It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.' "
> 
> – Abortion clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping p 34
> 
> 
> "Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks *a baby is totally formed,* he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"
> 
> – Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28
> 
> 
> “Every woman has these same two questions: First, “Is it a baby?” “No” the counselor assures her. “It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)…* How many women would have an abortion, if we told them the truth?*”
> 
> – Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four
> 
> 
> “If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, *we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort i*mmediately.”
> 
> – Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas
> 
> 
> “There was a public health center in a town not far from Denver and they sent a lot of girls to us. They told us they did all the counseling. We weren’t allowed to counsel them or even ask them about birth control. We couldn’t even tell them what could happen during the abortion. Nothing. If we tried to discuss alternatives, we would get in trouble with the doctor because then the health center would threaten to send their business elsewhere. All we did was find out how far along they were, tell them when they were going to be finished, *get their money, do the abortion, and send them home*.”
> 
> – Sam Griggs, Registered Nurse
> 
> 
> “If you can’t *sell abortions* over the phone, you will not last.”
> 
> – Hellen Pendley, former owner-director of an abortion clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There are many more quotes like that, but I don't want to turn this into a book here.



Its a CONSPIRACY!!!!!


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> Holy fuckballs Cletus!!


Yep a dude pretending to be female. Must be transginger


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't make it a practice to reprimand judges for their decisions, since I never completed law school, myself. However, I have no problem ignoring the law, if it is unjust in my opinion. Any law restricting my right to provide for abortions for my family is, in fact, unjust. On the other hand, if the pro-life people are willing to meet me half way and give me the right, in return, to require them to get an abortion, if I so choose, I guess that would be fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see... one scenario saves a life, the other one takes it away. Sure, we'll get right on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, both sceneries give the other party the right to take away your right to make the most important decisions in your life. Get it now? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing to "get". The child's right to life trumps your 'right' to kill it and you will *never* change my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that works for me, since I am not trying to change your mind, because, as been said before, even if you outlaw abortion, it will take place anyway, and there is absolutely no way that you can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
Click to expand...


So what? It still is not going to stop D&C's, not to mention many other options. As for me, I left GA decades ago, so I am not going to lose any sleep over them returning to the dark ages.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the ignoramus here who thinks that young women seeking abortion are counseled about all their options in a sincere way, instead of being sold the abortion....
> 
> "I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists, nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. *We were doing it for the money.*"
> 
> – Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd
> 
> 
> “The women are *never allowed to look at the ultrasound *because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion.”
> 
> – Dr. Randall “Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet” by David Kuperlain and Mark Masters in Oct “New Dimensions” magazine
> 
> 
> "I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and *were just lied to by the abortion counselor*. Namely  'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression."
> 
> – Psychologist Vincent Rue, quoted in "Abortion Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimemsions, October 1991
> 
> 
> "We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always wanted to know the sex, but *we lied* and said it was too early to tell. It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.' "
> 
> – Abortion clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping p 34
> 
> 
> "Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks *a baby is totally formed,* he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"
> 
> – Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28
> 
> 
> “Every woman has these same two questions: First, “Is it a baby?” “No” the counselor assures her. “It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)…* How many women would have an abortion, if we told them the truth?*”
> 
> – Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four
> 
> 
> “If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, *we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort i*mmediately.”
> 
> – Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas
> 
> 
> “There was a public health center in a town not far from Denver and they sent a lot of girls to us. They told us they did all the counseling. We weren’t allowed to counsel them or even ask them about birth control. We couldn’t even tell them what could happen during the abortion. Nothing. If we tried to discuss alternatives, we would get in trouble with the doctor because then the health center would threaten to send their business elsewhere. All we did was find out how far along they were, tell them when they were going to be finished, *get their money, do the abortion, and send them home*.”
> 
> – Sam Griggs, Registered Nurse
> 
> 
> “If you can’t *sell abortions* over the phone, you will not last.”
> 
> – Hellen Pendley, former owner-director of an abortion clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There are many more quotes like that, but I don't want to turn this into a book here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a CONSPIRACY!!!!!
Click to expand...


Nope. But AGAIN, you show by your flippant words that you couldn't care less about lies, deception (and now) coercive tactics. 

Most of your replies are snarky, juvenile one-liners.   And you're supposed to be a grown man?  In your what, 50's?   Pathetic, and disgusting.


----------



## Death Angel

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.
Click to expand...

That natural instinct has been suppressed in the skulls full of mush of the American tard


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.
> 
> You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.
> 
> I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH MY GOSH. You are dense.  That is not the issue!  That is nothing but a red herring.
> 
> Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:
> 
> 
> But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified.  Which is the crux of the abortion debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crux of YOUR debate, not mine. I'm done with this lifelong debate. Tired of it. Finished.
> 
> Now I Just Say No. Along with the other pro-choice women and plenty of pro-choice men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp that was fast--came in like a barrel of rifles, left saying you're done with the debate. That's because you were trounced, but at least you sort of admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! You haven't trounced shit. "NotYourBody sucked the "pro-life" bs right out of you. But I'm here anytime you need consultation.
> 
> Tell you what, let's not beat around the bush, and get started with my basic argument;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.
> *
> When you think you have an intelligent counter argument to this one, please, bring it on.
Click to expand...

You write all this, and read all that, yet you are willing to GUESS about life, and when it might be appropriate to kill it ???? That's some risky stuff in dealing with your own soul like that, but here you are admitting that you are guessing, and you speak of God also, but your worldlyness consumes you, and clouds your thinking as you contemplate supporting the killing of a baby in a woman's womb.


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the ignoramus here who thinks that young women seeking abortion are counseled about all their options in a sincere way, instead of being sold the abortion....
> 
> "I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists, nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. *We were doing it for the money.*"
> 
> – Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd
> 
> 
> “The women are *never allowed to look at the ultrasound *because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion.”
> 
> – Dr. Randall “Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet” by David Kuperlain and Mark Masters in Oct “New Dimensions” magazine
> 
> 
> "I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and *were just lied to by the abortion counselor*. Namely  'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression."
> 
> – Psychologist Vincent Rue, quoted in "Abortion Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimemsions, October 1991
> 
> 
> "We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always wanted to know the sex, but *we lied* and said it was too early to tell. It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.' "
> 
> – Abortion clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping p 34
> 
> 
> "Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks *a baby is totally formed,* he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"
> 
> – Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28
> 
> 
> “Every woman has these same two questions: First, “Is it a baby?” “No” the counselor assures her. “It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)…* How many women would have an abortion, if we told them the truth?*”
> 
> – Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four
> 
> 
> “If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, *we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort i*mmediately.”
> 
> – Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas
> 
> 
> “There was a public health center in a town not far from Denver and they sent a lot of girls to us. They told us they did all the counseling. We weren’t allowed to counsel them or even ask them about birth control. We couldn’t even tell them what could happen during the abortion. Nothing. If we tried to discuss alternatives, we would get in trouble with the doctor because then the health center would threaten to send their business elsewhere. All we did was find out how far along they were, tell them when they were going to be finished, *get their money, do the abortion, and send them home*.”
> 
> – Sam Griggs, Registered Nurse
> 
> 
> “If you can’t *sell abortions* over the phone, you will not last.”
> 
> – Hellen Pendley, former owner-director of an abortion clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There are many more quotes like that, but I don't want to turn this into a book here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a CONSPIRACY!!!!!
Click to expand...

It's all LIES!!!!!! Because YOU disagree


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see... one scenario saves a life, the other one takes it away. Sure, we'll get right on that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, both sceneries give the other party the right to take away your right to make the most important decisions in your life. Get it now? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing to "get". The child's right to life trumps your 'right' to kill it and you will *never* change my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that works for me, since I am not trying to change your mind, because, as been said before, even if you outlaw abortion, it will take place anyway, and there is absolutely no way that you can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It still is not going to stop D&C's, not to mention many other options. As for me, I left GA decades ago, so I am not going to lose any sleep over them returning to the dark ages.
Click to expand...


Why & where is the D&C being performed?


----------



## buttercup

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the ignoramus here who thinks that young women seeking abortion are counseled about all their options in a sincere way, instead of being sold the abortion....
> 
> "I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists, nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. *We were doing it for the money.*"
> 
> – Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd
> 
> 
> “The women are *never allowed to look at the ultrasound *because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion.”
> 
> – Dr. Randall “Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet” by David Kuperlain and Mark Masters in Oct “New Dimensions” magazine
> 
> 
> "I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and *were just lied to by the abortion counselor*. Namely  'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression."
> 
> – Psychologist Vincent Rue, quoted in "Abortion Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimemsions, October 1991
> 
> 
> "We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always wanted to know the sex, but *we lied* and said it was too early to tell. It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.' "
> 
> – Abortion clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping p 34
> 
> 
> "Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks *a baby is totally formed,* he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"
> 
> – Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28
> 
> 
> “Every woman has these same two questions: First, “Is it a baby?” “No” the counselor assures her. “It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)…* How many women would have an abortion, if we told them the truth?*”
> 
> – Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four
> 
> 
> “If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, *we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort i*mmediately.”
> 
> – Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas
> 
> 
> “There was a public health center in a town not far from Denver and they sent a lot of girls to us. They told us they did all the counseling. We weren’t allowed to counsel them or even ask them about birth control. We couldn’t even tell them what could happen during the abortion. Nothing. If we tried to discuss alternatives, we would get in trouble with the doctor because then the health center would threaten to send their business elsewhere. All we did was find out how far along they were, tell them when they were going to be finished, *get their money, do the abortion, and send them home*.”
> 
> – Sam Griggs, Registered Nurse
> 
> 
> “If you can’t *sell abortions* over the phone, you will not last.”
> 
> – Hellen Pendley, former owner-director of an abortion clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There are many more quotes like that, but I don't want to turn this into a book here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a CONSPIRACY!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all LIES!!!!!! Because YOU disagree
Click to expand...


Nah, he doesn't even seem to be denying those things or saying they're lies.  He's just mocking that post by implying that I'm saying it's a conspiracy.  *roll eyes*  Which shows, he doesn't care about truth, honesty or underhanded tactics.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the ignoramus here who thinks that young women seeking abortion are counseled about all their options in a sincere way, instead of being sold the abortion....
> 
> "I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists, nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. *We were doing it for the money.*"
> 
> – Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd
> 
> 
> “The women are *never allowed to look at the ultrasound *because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion.”
> 
> – Dr. Randall “Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet” by David Kuperlain and Mark Masters in Oct “New Dimensions” magazine
> 
> 
> "I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and *were just lied to by the abortion counselor*. Namely  'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression."
> 
> – Psychologist Vincent Rue, quoted in "Abortion Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimemsions, October 1991
> 
> 
> "We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always wanted to know the sex, but *we lied* and said it was too early to tell. It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.' "
> 
> – Abortion clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping p 34
> 
> 
> "Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks *a baby is totally formed,* he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"
> 
> – Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28
> 
> 
> “Every woman has these same two questions: First, “Is it a baby?” “No” the counselor assures her. “It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)…* How many women would have an abortion, if we told them the truth?*”
> 
> – Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four
> 
> 
> “If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, *we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort i*mmediately.”
> 
> – Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas
> 
> 
> “There was a public health center in a town not far from Denver and they sent a lot of girls to us. They told us they did all the counseling. We weren’t allowed to counsel them or even ask them about birth control. We couldn’t even tell them what could happen during the abortion. Nothing. If we tried to discuss alternatives, we would get in trouble with the doctor because then the health center would threaten to send their business elsewhere. All we did was find out how far along they were, tell them when they were going to be finished, *get their money, do the abortion, and send them home*.”
> 
> – Sam Griggs, Registered Nurse
> 
> 
> “If you can’t *sell abortions* over the phone, you will not last.”
> 
> – Hellen Pendley, former owner-director of an abortion clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There are many more quotes like that, but I don't want to turn this into a book here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a CONSPIRACY!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. But AGAIN, you show by your flippant words that you couldn't care less about lies, deception (and now) coercive tactics.
> 
> Most of your replies are snarky, juvenile one-liners.   And you're supposed to be a grown man?  In your what, 50's?   Pathetic, and disgusting.
Click to expand...


...and, yet, Buttercup, it is not ME, but YOU, who is hurling personal insults! Hmmmmmmmm…..


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other takers on that question?  Come on you fighters for killing rights, why so silent?   NotYourBody?  BWK?
> 
> Oh, but thank you to DBlack for answering, even if his answer was wrong.  At least he answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you know the homicide happened? If you don't know it happened, how will you stop it? You don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Facepalm*   Are you completely unfamiliar with the case?  They found her body, she was 8 months pregnant. Everyone knew, when she went missing, that she was 8 months pregnant.
> 
> Answer the question. Stop with the neverending red herrings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you answer her question for a change? You've been dodging it for three days. How are you going to know she's pregnant? You're arguing for laws that will require draconian control of pregnant women to meaningfully enforce. Why don't you want to talk about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason we haven't talked about that is because that has been used over and over as a red herring or deflection from the actual debate at hand.  If you want to talk about that, start a new thread.
Click to expand...

No, it belongs in this thread. It's front and center and the primary reason I oppose banning abortions. Some problems (most problems) can't be solved by passing a law. And if you try to legislate them anyway, it only makes matters worse. Abortion is one of those problems. Government can't really have the kind of control that you want. And if you try, I think it's going to cause more harm than good.

But prove me wrong. Tell us how you'd meaningfully enforce an abortion ban? Who gets punished? How? What would you do about websites that publish do-it-yourself abortion tips? Assuming it's done state by state, are citizens allowed to travel to neighboring states for abortions? And what about women who perform abortions on themselves? What about those who miscarry _under suspicious circumstances_? beagle9 said something about indoctrination. Is that part of the plan?

I guess you think I'm paranoid, but I see a pretty horrific vision of the kind of government that would be necessary to achieve your goals.



> My view is that MANY (not all) young women who have abortions don't know what they're doing.  They have been brainwashed by this messed up society we live in, and taught that there's nothing wrong with abortion.  So in most cases, I actually have sympathy for the young women who end up at the abortion clinic... Many of them are borderline coerced, and feel like they literally have no choice.  Why, because in many cases they aren't given other options.  They aren't shown an ultrasound, in most cases, they aren't told the truth about abortion, they are lied to every step of the way.  And then many of them don't even realize they're doing anything wrong.  Especially the young, naive ones.



Totally agree with this.



> I believe that the *abortionists*, the ones who DO know exactly what they're doing, are the ones who should face jail time.  They do it for money.  If you don't believe me, I'll post tons of quotes from former abortionists and clinic workers.



Do you have concerns about do-it-yourself abortions? Surely the number would go up in a state that outlawed abortions. And what about people who go to another state to get an abortion? Would they be prosecuted?


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, both sceneries give the other party the right to take away your right to make the most important decisions in your life. Get it now? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to "get". The child's right to life trumps your 'right' to kill it and you will *never* change my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that works for me, since I am not trying to change your mind, because, as been said before, even if you outlaw abortion, it will take place anyway, and there is absolutely no way that you can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It still is not going to stop D&C's, not to mention many other options. As for me, I left GA decades ago, so I am not going to lose any sleep over them returning to the dark ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why & where is the D&C being performed?
Click to expand...


...Uh, that would be in doctor's offices, everyday.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> ​
> There are many more quotes like that, but I don't want to turn this into a book here.



Sorry, I didn't read any of that. Too much word vomit.

I'm sorry your faith in young women is so low that you think they are unable to think for themselves and research their options.

Instead you apparently believe they blindly stumble into an abortion clinic which renders them mute and helpless. 

No wonder you are so upset.


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> On the other hand, if the pro-life people are willing to meet me half way and give me the right, in return, to require them to get an abortion, if I so choose, I guess that would be fair.



I wish that were funny, rather than vaguely terrifying, and all-too-possible.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> You know what I find most interesting about this thread? It's that the most vehement pro-life voices in it are WOMEN. (At least I assume they are by the user names.)
> 
> That's really gotta chap the leftist asses.


Not at all.

Women are no better able than men to control my body. All will encounter a battle.


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to "get". The child's right to life trumps your 'right' to kill it and you will *never* change my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that works for me, since I am not trying to change your mind, because, as been said before, even if you outlaw abortion, it will take place anyway, and there is absolutely no way that you can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It still is not going to stop D&C's, not to mention many other options. As for me, I left GA decades ago, so I am not going to lose any sleep over them returning to the dark ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why & where is the D&C being performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Uh, that would be in doctor's offices, everyday.
Click to expand...


I also asked why - as in what's the reasoning behind it. You're implying that a D&C automatically equates to an abortion.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.


How you gonna know I had an abortion big boy?

Tell me you plan. I keep asking you. You scared?


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuckballs Cletus!!
> 
> 
> 
> Yep a dude pretending to be female. Must be transginger
Click to expand...



Because they have so much need for abortions.


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> You know what I find most interesting about this thread? It's that the most vehement pro-life voices in it are WOMEN. (At least I assume they are by the user names.)
> 
> That's really gotta chap the leftist asses.



Yet another group they're taking for granted. But that's another topic.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There are many more quotes like that, but I don't want to turn this into a book here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't read any of that. Too much word vomit.
> 
> I'm sorry your faith in young women is so low that you think they are unable to think for themselves and research their options.
> 
> Instead you apparently believe they blindly stumble into an abortion clinic which renders them mute and helpless.
> 
> No wonder you are so upset.
Click to expand...


If reading a few quotes is too much for you (especially when they're formatted in a clear, legible way) then that is beyond pathetic.  How did you even get through high school?  Have you ever read a book in your life?  If a handful of quotes is too much, then.... gosh, no wonder you hold the positions you do.  Now it actually makes more sense.   I can see now why the bible says what it says about dealing with fools.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I find most interesting about this thread? It's that the most vehement pro-life voices in it are WOMEN. (At least I assume they are by the user names.)
> 
> That's really gotta chap the leftist asses.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Women are no better able than men to control my body than I am. All will encounter a battle.
Click to expand...


You remind me of another leftist loon I once encountered online who had the exact same demeanor you do - petulant digital foot stomping and endlessly repeating the same shit over and over again as if it somehow rationalized her stance. It doesn't, and you just look like a nutjob.


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna know I had an abortion big boy?
> 
> Tell me you plan. I keep asking you. You scared?
Click to expand...


And I've answered you. Repeatedly. If you had an attention span beyond that of a goldfish you would have seen it. Search the thread. Unlike you, I'm not going to play your childish little fucking game and reiterate myself in perpetuity.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that works for me, since I am not trying to change your mind, because, as been said before, even if you outlaw abortion, it will take place anyway, and there is absolutely no way that you can stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It still is not going to stop D&C's, not to mention many other options. As for me, I left GA decades ago, so I am not going to lose any sleep over them returning to the dark ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why & where is the D&C being performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Uh, that would be in doctor's offices, everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also asked why - as in what's the reasoning behind it. You're implying that a D&C automatically equates to an abortion.
Click to expand...


I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? It still is not going to stop D&C's, not to mention many other options. As for me, I left GA decades ago, so I am not going to lose any sleep over them returning to the dark ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why & where is the D&C being performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Uh, that would be in doctor's offices, everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also asked why - as in what's the reasoning behind it. You're implying that a D&C automatically equates to an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
Click to expand...


I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> If reading a few quotes is too much for you (especially when they're formatted in a clear, legible way) then that is beyond pathetic.  How did you even get through high school?  Have you ever read a book in your life?  If a handful of quotes is too much, then.... gosh, no wonder you hold the positions you do.  Now it actually makes more sense.   I can see now why the bible says what it says about dealing with fools.



I am not attempting to prevent you, in any way, from providing information to anyone who will receive it from you. I won't try to do that in the future. I am not a threat to you unless you try to assume control of my body.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? It still is not going to stop D&C's, not to mention many other options. As for me, I left GA decades ago, so I am not going to lose any sleep over them returning to the dark ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why & where is the D&C being performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Uh, that would be in doctor's offices, everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also asked why - as in what's the reasoning behind it. You're implying that a D&C automatically equates to an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?
Click to expand...


"By George, he's got it!"


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why & where is the D&C being performed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Uh, that would be in doctor's offices, everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also asked why - as in what's the reasoning behind it. You're implying that a D&C automatically equates to an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "By George, he's got it!"
Click to expand...


So? Where did I suggest otherwise?

I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I _also _said that was their risk to take, just as *any other crime would be*. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?

EDIT: 

The question you SHOULD be asking yourself is that in today's interconnected digital world, how many of these medical professionals and clinics are going to risk their medical licenses performing illegal procedures? My guess is they would be few and far between. If the govt can bust rub-and-tug shops on the daily, you can be sure they'll find and roll these places too.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Uh, that would be in doctor's offices, everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also asked why - as in what's the reasoning behind it. You're implying that a D&C automatically equates to an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "By George, he's got it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Where did I suggest otherwise?
> 
> I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I _also _said that was their risk to take, just as *any other crime would be*. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?
Click to expand...


My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at


ALL law exist to enforce someone's "morality." And this is entirely constitutional. THIS is the primary duty of our civilized Constitutional Republic.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also asked why - as in what's the reasoning behind it. You're implying that a D&C automatically equates to an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "By George, he's got it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Where did I suggest otherwise?
> 
> I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I _also _said that was their risk to take, just as *any other crime would be*. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.
Click to expand...


Totally debunked myth. Laws actually do lessen the number of abortions.


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also asked why - as in what's the reasoning behind it. You're implying that a D&C automatically equates to an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "By George, he's got it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Where did I suggest otherwise?
> 
> I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I _also _said that was their risk to take, just as *any other crime would be*. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.
Click to expand...


See my edit. 

So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong? 
When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong? 
When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?

Your argument dies an excruciating death on those points alone, and there's a whole bunch more I could list.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna know I had an abortion big boy?
> 
> Tell me you plan. I keep asking you. You scared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've answered you. Repeatedly. If you had an attention span beyond that of a goldfish you would have seen it. Search the thread. Unlike you, I'm not going to play your childish little fucking game and reiterate myself in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

Are you the 99 year in prison poster? I forgot. You were going to work on getting that legislated?


----------



## satrebil

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at
> 
> 
> 
> ALL law exist to enforce someone's "morality." And this is entirely constitutional. THIS is the primary duty of our civilized Constitutional Republic.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I really don't get that argument AT ALL. 

I mean, why the hell would murder be illegal if not for morality?


----------



## satrebil

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna know I had an abortion big boy?
> 
> Tell me you plan. I keep asking you. You scared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've answered you. Repeatedly. If you had an attention span beyond that of a goldfish you would have seen it. Search the thread. Unlike you, I'm not going to play your childish little fucking game and reiterate myself in perpetuity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you the 99 year in prison poster? I forgot. You were going to work on getting that legislated?
Click to expand...


Nope. Like I said, stop being a scatterbrain and read the thread.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna know I had an abortion big boy?
> 
> Tell me you plan. I keep asking you. You scared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've answered you. Repeatedly. If you had an attention span beyond that of a goldfish you would have seen it. Search the thread. Unlike you, I'm not going to play your childish little fucking game and reiterate myself in perpetuity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you the 99 year in prison poster? I forgot. You were going to work on getting that legislated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Like I said, stop being a scatterbrain and read the thread.
Click to expand...


Nah, if it doesn't detail how you aim to stop me from having an abortion if that's my decision (and we've already established that you cannot) I'll pass. You can't punish me either because you don't know about the abortion murder. 

You are no threat to me.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at
> 
> 
> 
> ALL law exist to enforce someone's "morality." And this is entirely constitutional. THIS is the primary duty of our civilized Constitutional Republic.
Click to expand...


Well, send me a PM when you get your seat on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "By George, he's got it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Where did I suggest otherwise?
> 
> I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I _also _said that was their risk to take, just as *any other crime would be*. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally debunked myth. Laws actually do lessen the number of abortions.
Click to expand...


So, you think that the 4th time you posted this that I would watch it?


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?



Those aren't examples of "legislating morality". Those are examples of protecting civil liberties and ensuring equal protection. "Legislating morality" is a phrase used when laws dictate behavior based on morals rather than rights. Porn is a classic example. No one's rights are being violated if someone makes and sells a porn movie. It was illegal for moral reasons.

Now, I know you're going to say that the fetus has rights - but that's where we're stymied. I think it's a ridiculous concept, except that it's not funny because it would set a terrifying legal precedent.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "By George, he's got it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Where did I suggest otherwise?
> 
> I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I _also _said that was their risk to take, just as *any other crime would be*. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my edit.
> 
> So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?
> 
> Your argument dies an excruciating death on those points alone, and there's a whole bunch more I could list.
Click to expand...


Oh, please spare me, Sat. I attended the funeral of MLK in my home town of Atlanta. Did you?


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "By George, he's got it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Where did I suggest otherwise?
> 
> I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I _also _said that was their risk to take, just as *any other crime would be*. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my edit.
> 
> So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?
> 
> Your argument dies an excruciating death on those points alone, and there's a whole bunch more I could list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please spare me, Sat. I attended the funeral of MLK in my home town of Atlanta. Did you?
Click to expand...


What the hell does that have to do with my question(s)?

Typical leftist. Can't dispute the facts so change the narrative.


----------



## Vandalshandle

It's been fun, boys and girls, but my cats are demanding their nightly treat and attention.....Adios.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "By George, he's got it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Where did I suggest otherwise?
> 
> I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I _also _said that was their risk to take, just as *any other crime would be*. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally debunked myth. Laws actually do lessen the number of abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think that the 4th time you posted this that I would watch it?
Click to expand...


Just refuting what you said.  If you refuse to look at anything that refutes what you say, that speaks about _you,_ not me.   It's actually the same mentality as another poster on this thread, willfull ignorance. Sad and very unbecoming.


----------



## satrebil

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't examples of "legislating morality". Those are examples of protecting civil liberties and ensuring equal protection. "Legislating morality" is a phrase used when laws dictate behavior based on morals rather than rights. Porn is a classic example. No one's rights are being violated if someone makes and sells a porn movie. It was illegal for moral reasons.
> 
> Now, I know you're going to say that the fetus has rights - but that's where we're stymied. I think it's a ridiculous concept, except that it's not funny because it would set a terrifying legal precedent.
Click to expand...


The fetus does have rights, which is why if I deliberately kill one I go to jail. The precedent already exists, thousands of times over. The difference is that, currently, a woman who gets an abortion is legally immune from those precedents. Legal immunity does not negate culpability, only prosecution. A foreign diplomat could execute someone in the street in front of 100 cops and they can't do shit about it - that doesn't mean he didn't murder someone.


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> The fetus does have rights, which is why if I deliberately kill one I go to jail. The precedent already exists, thousands of times over. The difference is that, currently, a woman who gets an abortion is legally immune from those precedents. Legal immunity does not negate culpability, only prosecution. A foreign diplomat could execute someone in the street in front of 100 cops and they can't do shit about it - that doesn't mean he didn't murder someone.



Yep. And we're seeing where that precedent will take us.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "By George, he's got it!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? Where did I suggest otherwise?
> 
> I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I _also _said that was their risk to take, just as *any other crime would be*. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally debunked myth. Laws actually do lessen the number of abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think that the 4th time you posted this that I would watch it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just refuting what you said.  If you refuse to look at anything that refutes what you say, that speaks about _you,_ not me.   It's actually the same mentality as another poster on this thread, willfull ignorance. Sad and very unbecoming.
Click to expand...


OMG! Does this mean that I don't have your approval? Oh, the horror of it all!


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't examples of "legislating morality". Those are examples of protecting civil liberties and ensuring equal protection. "Legislating morality" is a phrase used when laws dictate behavior based on morals rather than rights. Porn is a classic example. No one's rights are being violated if someone makes and sells a porn movie. It was illegal for moral reasons.
> 
> Now, I know you're going to say that the fetus has rights - but that's where we're stymied. I think it's a ridiculous concept, except that it's not funny because it would set a terrifying legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus does have rights, which is why if I deliberately kill one I go to jail. The precedent already exists, thousands of times over. The difference is that, currently, a woman who gets an abortion is legally immune from those precedents. Legal immunity does not negate culpability, only prosecution. A foreign diplomat could execute someone in the street in front of 100 cops and they can't do shit about it - that doesn't mean he didn't murder someone.
Click to expand...


Now, Sat., there you go again. Even it Roe is overturned, there has never been, and never will be, a penalty against the woman. Only to the abortionist. How many windmills have you tilted against and won?


----------



## Chuz Life

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
> When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't examples of "legislating morality". Those are examples of protecting civil liberties and ensuring equal protection. "Legislating morality" is a phrase used when laws dictate behavior based on morals rather than rights. Porn is a classic example. No one's rights are being violated if someone makes and sells a porn movie. It was illegal for moral reasons.
> 
> Now, I know you're going to say that the fetus has rights - but that's where we're stymied. I think it's a ridiculous concept, except that it's not funny because it would set a terrifying legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus does have rights, which is why if I deliberately kill one I go to jail. The precedent already exists, thousands of times over. The difference is that, currently, a woman who gets an abortion is legally immune from those precedents. Legal immunity does not negate culpability, only prosecution. A foreign diplomat could execute someone in the street in front of 100 cops and they can't do shit about it - that doesn't mean he didn't murder someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, Sat., there you go again. Even it Roe is overturned, there has never been, and never will be, a penalty against the woman. Only to the abortionist. How many windmills have you tilted against and won?
Click to expand...



The goal is not to punish women.

The goal is to secure their rights from the moment their lives begin. 

After all, a woman's rights should begin when her life does and not just when society decides it can not stomach or justify the denial of her rights anymore.

Shouldn't they?


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna know I had an abortion big boy?
> 
> Tell me you plan. I keep asking you. You scared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've answered you. Repeatedly. If you had an attention span beyond that of a goldfish you would have seen it. Search the thread. Unlike you, I'm not going to play your childish little fucking game and reiterate myself in perpetuity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you the 99 year in prison poster? I forgot. You were going to work on getting that legislated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Like I said, stop being a scatterbrain and read the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, if it doesn't detail how you aim to stop me from having an abortion if that's my decision (and we've already established that you cannot) I'll pass. You can't punish me either because you don't know about the abortion murder.
> 
> You are no threat to me.
Click to expand...


It's almost unbelievable to me how much time you've spent arguing something so stupid on this thread. 

We stop abortion the same way we stop murder--by making it illegal and by punishing the actual killers. First, shut down the killing mills. Second, punish any doctors doing abortions. 

Now, if you want to go obtain an illegal, "back alley" abortion--you are absolutely right. We cannot stop you, in the same way we can't stop what goes on with murder all over the nation every single day. It should go without saying that this is the price of living in a free society--that we outlaw killing but we cannot actually STOP people of free will FROM killing if they are dead set on it.

There. I could have saved you from typing like 100 posts or something.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

NotYourBody said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents. See how easy this is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me your plan for FORCING parents to take full responsibility from birth to adulthood for that childs physical and emotional (that's important, so they don't later shoot up schools, churches, concerts, etc.) needs?
> 
> I'll need a method that has not already failed.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that pro-choice people would make negligent and abusive parents?


----------



## NotYourBody

SweetSue92 said:


> It's almost unbelievable to me how much time you've spent arguing something so stupid on this thread.
> 
> We stop abortion the same way we stop murder--by making it illegal and by punishing the actual killers. First, shut down the killing mills. Second, punish any doctors doing abortions.
> 
> Now, if you want to go obtain an illegal, "back alley" abortion--you are absolutely right. We cannot stop you, in the same way we can't stop what goes on with murder all over the nation every single day. It should go without saying that this is the price of living in a free society--that we outlaw killing but we cannot actually STOP people of free will FROM killing if they are dead set on it.
> 
> There. I could have saved you from typing like 100 posts or something.



LOCK THEM UP!!

Good luck with that. You could have saved yourself all that typing.

Not your body. Not your control. NEVER. NO.


----------



## NotYourBody

Ghost of a Rider said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents. See how easy this is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me your plan for FORCING parents to take full responsibility from birth to adulthood for that childs physical and emotional (that's important, so they don't later shoot up schools, churches, concerts, etc.) needs?
> 
> I'll need a method that has not already failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that pro-choice people would make negligent and abusive parents?
Click to expand...


No plan to offer??  I thought not.


----------



## PoliticalChic

"In New York it was the Democrat elected Assembly and governor who passed, signed into law, and then gave themselves a standing ovation on the dead-of-night passage of that state’s new legalization of killing children after they had been born.

In Virginia it was a Democrat governor who eerily described on morning radio step by step what happens when they decide whether a born child has the right to live or be killed.

... three NYC Democrat-controlled zip codes are the only ones where abortions outnumber live births.

Democrats have argued for mandatory tax-payer funding for low income women to have their children killed without having to pay for it. 

...this week Nancy Pelosi led the charge of Democrats and for the fiftieth consecutive time were able to kill legislation that prevented post birth killing of children already born. Akin to the dead of night New York State Assembly vote—Democrats on the national stage voted to keep the killing of born children—legal."
What Is It With Democrats And Death?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

NotYourBody said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents. See how easy this is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me your plan for FORCING parents to take full responsibility from birth to adulthood for that childs physical and emotional (that's important, so they don't later shoot up schools, churches, concerts, etc.) needs?
> 
> I'll need a method that has not already failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that pro-choice people would make negligent and abusive parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No plan to offer??  I thought not.
Click to expand...


Plan for what?


----------



## BWK

satrebil said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
Click to expand...

We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> "In New York it was the Democrat elected Assembly and governor who passed, signed into law, and then gave themselves a standing ovation on the dead-of-night passage of that state’s new legalization of killing children after they had been born.
> 
> In Virginia it was a Democrat governor who eerily described on morning radio step by step what happens when they decide whether a born child has the right to live or be killed.
> 
> ... three NYC Democrat-controlled zip codes are the only ones where abortions outnumber live births.
> 
> Democrats have argued for mandatory tax-payer funding for low income women to have their children killed without having to pay for it.
> 
> ...this week Nancy Pelosi led the charge of Democrats and for the fiftieth consecutive time were able to kill legislation that prevented post birth killing of children already born. Akin to the dead of night New York State Assembly vote—Democrats on the national stage voted to keep the killing of born children—legal."
> What Is It With Democrats And Death?


You still haven't proven that it is killing. You are a liar, and you make shit up.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
Click to expand...


Good grief....you've went over the edge.


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  is very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CHILD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no, the preborn is not "part" of the mother's body, unless you think a person can have 2 unique sets of DNA, 2 different blood types,  2 beating hearts, 4 arms and 4 legs, etc.  Come on now, you're once against proving the OP correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. A fetus isn't a child,  and it should never be afforded legal rights apart from those of its owner. To do so is insane and creates a bizarre legal environment where pregnant women are treated as state property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you better get on the phone with a shitload of judges and inform them that all of the fetal homicide suspects they've sentenced were innocent & demand their release from prison.
> 
> Hop to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homicides? You ain't seen nothing yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pro-aborts resorting to FICTION
Click to expand...

Reminding you of your wet dream.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In New York it was the Democrat elected Assembly and governor who passed, signed into law, and then gave themselves a standing ovation on the dead-of-night passage of that state’s new legalization of killing children after they had been born.
> 
> In Virginia it was a Democrat governor who eerily described on morning radio step by step what happens when they decide whether a born child has the right to live or be killed.
> 
> ... three NYC Democrat-controlled zip codes are the only ones where abortions outnumber live births.
> 
> Democrats have argued for mandatory tax-payer funding for low income women to have their children killed without having to pay for it.
> 
> ...this week Nancy Pelosi led the charge of Democrats and for the fiftieth consecutive time were able to kill legislation that prevented post birth killing of children already born. Akin to the dead of night New York State Assembly vote—Democrats on the national stage voted to keep the killing of born children—legal."
> What Is It With Democrats And Death?
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't proven that it is killing. You are a liar, and you make shit up.
Click to expand...




Try to post sans vulgarity.....it gives away how deeply the post has wounded you.


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
Click to expand...

That isn't a counter argument. That's a coward running from it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
Click to expand...




They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.

It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In New York it was the Democrat elected Assembly and governor who passed, signed into law, and then gave themselves a standing ovation on the dead-of-night passage of that state’s new legalization of killing children after they had been born.
> 
> In Virginia it was a Democrat governor who eerily described on morning radio step by step what happens when they decide whether a born child has the right to live or be killed.
> 
> ... three NYC Democrat-controlled zip codes are the only ones where abortions outnumber live births.
> 
> Democrats have argued for mandatory tax-payer funding for low income women to have their children killed without having to pay for it.
> 
> ...this week Nancy Pelosi led the charge of Democrats and for the fiftieth consecutive time were able to kill legislation that prevented post birth killing of children already born. Akin to the dead of night New York State Assembly vote—Democrats on the national stage voted to keep the killing of born children—legal."
> What Is It With Democrats And Death?
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't proven that it is killing. You are a liar, and you make shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to post sans vulgarity.....it gives away how deeply the post has wounded you.
Click to expand...

The truth is a horrible thing to swallow. And so is your non-argument.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In New York it was the Democrat elected Assembly and governor who passed, signed into law, and then gave themselves a standing ovation on the dead-of-night passage of that state’s new legalization of killing children after they had been born.
> 
> In Virginia it was a Democrat governor who eerily described on morning radio step by step what happens when they decide whether a born child has the right to live or be killed.
> 
> ... three NYC Democrat-controlled zip codes are the only ones where abortions outnumber live births.
> 
> Democrats have argued for mandatory tax-payer funding for low income women to have their children killed without having to pay for it.
> 
> ...this week Nancy Pelosi led the charge of Democrats and for the fiftieth consecutive time were able to kill legislation that prevented post birth killing of children already born. Akin to the dead of night New York State Assembly vote—Democrats on the national stage voted to keep the killing of born children—legal."
> What Is It With Democrats And Death?
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't proven that it is killing. You are a liar, and you make shit up.
Click to expand...




"You still haven't proven that it is killing."


Killing isn't killing????



More proof of Rule #1



Rule #1                                                                                                                                                            
 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't a counter argument. That's a coward running from it.
Click to expand...


It's so absurd good grief kills it, dumbass

You're inherently stupid and are grasping at anything and everything in defense of baby murder


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.
> 
> It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.
Click to expand...

Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't a counter argument. That's a coward running from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's so absurd good grief kills it, dumbass
> 
> You're inherently stupid and are grasping at anything and everything in defense of baby murder
Click to expand...

You are so intellectually bankrupt and informatively unprepared, you simply resort to just shooting up in the air at nothing, because your argument is backed up with nothing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.
> 
> It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!
Click to expand...





Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.


"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


Your posts are a great service to our side.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.
> 
> It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!
Click to expand...


You're an idiot and you spew nonsense. You're also unable to think outside your indoctrinated bubble world. 

Mocking you is the only alternative


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> 
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.
> 
> It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
Click to expand...

And yours are a true testament to mine. Thanks!


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> 
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.
> 
> It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot and you spew nonsense. You're also unable to think outside your indoctrinated bubble world.
> 
> Mocking you is the only alternative
Click to expand...

Ignorance in the form of total ad hominem is on full display here. You couldn't have an  intelligent discussion over Biological sciences  if your life depended on it.


----------



## BWK

Continue on with the ignorance and ad hominem. It's all you two have. I enjoy watching your posts as they are backed up by nothing. Lol! It's killing! It's life! It's murder. It's shit talk with nothing to back it up with except fanaticism.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.
> 
> It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot and you spew nonsense. You're also unable to think outside your indoctrinated bubble world.
> 
> Mocking you is the only alternative
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance in the form of total ad hominem is on full display here. You couldn't have an  intelligent discussion over Biological sciences  if your life depended on it.
Click to expand...


Look you ignorant toad, you stated an unfertlized egg discarded is an abortion

The definition of abortion is the termination of a human pregnancy. If the egg isn't fertilized there is no pregnancy you dumbed downed jackass

Sit your fucking stupid ass down


----------



## sealybobo

satrebil said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious. If it is to you then don’t get an abortion.
> 
> I bet you believe taking the morning after pill is murder.
> 
> If the woman was pregnant and she took the morning after pill and that caused the murder of the baby, you believe that was a life and it was murdered correct?
> 
> Most people disagree.
> 
> Do you really think the morning after pill is murder? If not why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Levonorgestrel is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it."
> 
> An Overview of Plan B (the Morning-After Pill)
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer my question. 

Do you consider taking a pill that causes a birth to not happen that would have happened otherwise murder? 

Are you afraid to admit to women that in your opinion even that is murder?


----------



## sealybobo

buttercup said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Would you say that about your own life?
Click to expand...

No. I think every human walking around life is precious. I just don’t think life is so precious that you can’t abort a 3 month old fetus.

I understand the Georgia or Alabama law is 8 weeks. They say most women don’t even know they are pregnant at 8 weeks.

So we need a cut off. Do I think a healthy fetus should be aborted at 7 months? No. But 3? Sure. Why? Because life isn’t that precious.

I’m over 3 months old


----------



## The Purge




----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. lol give you a great example. This pet pig got loose. The cops asked a neighbor if they could hold the pet pig intil they find the owner. The person didn’t wait and now they are going to charge the pig killer and send him to prison. Even though we kill and eat pigs all the time, this pig killer is going to jail for what he did.

We let women who are 3 months pregnant murder their fetuses every day. 

So the law says life isn’t that precious. Not a fetus. Not until 4 months old.

You’ll serve jail time if you shoot my dog. Why? Because it’s living life is more precious than a fetus.


----------



## sealybobo

The Purge said:


>


Aren’t most Bama fans republican conservatives? Why a e they getting abortions? Choice


----------



## The Purge

sealybobo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Would you say that about your own life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I think every human walking around life is precious. I just don’t think life is so precious that you can’t abort a 3 month old fetus.
> 
> I understand the Georgia or Alabama law is 8 weeks. They say most women don’t even know they are pregnant at 8 weeks.
> 
> So we need a cut off. Do I think a healthy fetus should be aborted at 7 months? No. But 3? Sure. Why? Because life isn’t that precious.
> 
> I’m over 3 months old
Click to expand...

You need a post birth abortion if you can ARBITRARILY  pick 3 months as a cut off.....MOST HUMAN LIFE IS PRECIOUS EXCEPT THE ONES THAT THINK NOT! YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN MURDERS THAT TAKE LIFE BECAUSE THEY CAN!


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.
Click to expand...

Then why don our laws confirm what you a e saying? Killing someone’s pet will give you jail time. Abortion is completely legal.

And you have the choice not to get one


----------



## The Purge

sealybobo said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren’t most Baka fans republican conservatives? Why a e they getting abortions? Choice
Click to expand...

How would you know...perhaps it is the ones in state  who aren't  getting abortions...most black aren't!


----------



## sealybobo

The Purge said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Would you say that about your own life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I think every human walking around life is precious. I just don’t think life is so precious that you can’t abort a 3 month old fetus.
> 
> I understand the Georgia or Alabama law is 8 weeks. They say most women don’t even know they are pregnant at 8 weeks.
> 
> So we need a cut off. Do I think a healthy fetus should be aborted at 7 months? No. But 3? Sure. Why? Because life isn’t that precious.
> 
> I’m over 3 months old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a post birth abortion if you can ARBITRARILY  pick 3 months as a cut off.....MOST HIMAN LIFE IS PRECIOUS EXCEPT THE ONES THAT THINK NOT! YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN MURDERS THAT TAKE LIFE BECAUSE THEY CAN!
Click to expand...

I didn’t arbitrarily pick 3 months. Our society picked the cut off point after careful thought. If you are anti abortion then you won’t compromise reasonably.


----------



## sealybobo

The Purge said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren’t most Baka fans republican conservatives? Why a e they getting abortions? Choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know...perhaps it is the ones in state  who aren't  getting abortions...most black aren't!
Click to expand...

I think most anti abortion women have had abortions


----------



## The Purge

sealybobo said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Would you say that about your own life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I think every human walking around life is precious. I just don’t think life is so precious that you can’t abort a 3 month old fetus.
> 
> I understand the Georgia or Alabama law is 8 weeks. They say most women don’t even know they are pregnant at 8 weeks.
> 
> So we need a cut off. Do I think a healthy fetus should be aborted at 7 months? No. But 3? Sure. Why? Because life isn’t that precious.
> 
> I’m over 3 months old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a post birth abortion if you can ARBITRARILY  pick 3 months as a cut off.....MOST HIMAN LIFE IS PRECIOUS EXCEPT THE ONES THAT THINK NOT! YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN MURDERS THAT TAKE LIFE BECAUSE THEY CAN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t arbitrarily pick 3 months. Our society picked the cut off point after careful thought. If you are anti abortion then you won’t compromise reasonably.
Click to expand...

There was no careful thought there was only compromises  made in the name of politics...as is most fucked up legislation.


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.
> 
> It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot and you spew nonsense. You're also unable to think outside your indoctrinated bubble world.
> 
> Mocking you is the only alternative
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance in the form of total ad hominem is on full display here. You couldn't have an  intelligent discussion over Biological sciences  if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you ignorant toad, you stated an unfertlized egg discarded is an abortion
> 
> The definition of abortion is the termination of a human pregnancy. If the egg isn't fertilized there is no pregnancy you dumbed downed jackass
> 
> Sit your fucking stupid ass down
Click to expand...

  Really! Is that right? And yet, according to science, that egg is life. And by the way, so is the sperm. That's according to the science. And when they pass by each other, what happens to that life? Take a wild guess? 

And, just to remind you, that abortion is "termination of a pregnancy". You also said it is "killing, murder, and it was life". If that is the case, the living cells are also  an egg and a sperm. That is according to science. Those cells are considered living within the mature male and female.  What's the difference if both the egg and sperm dying by not joining, as opposed to the joining of the egg and sperm being terminated?


----------



## BWK

sealybobo said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren’t most Baka fans republican conservatives? Why a e they getting abortions? Choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know...perhaps it is the ones in state  who aren't  getting abortions...most black aren't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think most anti abortion women have had abortions
Click to expand...

Especially those with money and privilege. It's all relative.


----------



## The Purge

sealybobo said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren’t most Baka fans republican conservatives? Why a e they getting abortions? Choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know...perhaps it is the ones in state  who aren't  getting abortions...most black aren't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think most anti abortion women have had abortions
Click to expand...

You simply don't  think...because the fucked up women you know want it!...Easy cheap contraceptives AND make the taxpayer pay for it.


----------



## sealybobo

BWK said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren’t most Baka fans republican conservatives? Why a e they getting abortions? Choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know...perhaps it is the ones in state  who aren't  getting abortions...most black aren't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think most anti abortion women have had abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Especially those with money and privilege. It's all relative.
Click to expand...

Imagine how many southern conservative republican women have gotten their whore daughters private abortions then the next day go picket the same abortion clinic.


----------



## Unkotare

BWK said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.
> 
> It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot and you spew nonsense. You're also unable to think outside your indoctrinated bubble world.
> 
> Mocking you is the only alternative
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance in the form of total ad hominem is on full display here. You couldn't have an  intelligent discussion over Biological sciences  if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you ignorant toad, you stated an unfertlized egg discarded is an abortion
> 
> The definition of abortion is the termination of a human pregnancy. If the egg isn't fertilized there is no pregnancy you dumbed downed jackass
> 
> Sit your fucking stupid ass down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......according to science, that egg is life. And by the way, so is the sperm.....
Click to expand...




No, they are not. You fail science.


----------



## Unkotare

Anyone who cannot see that life is most precious of all, really has no business calling themselves human. Of course by their attitudes and behaviors, it is clear that many of these non-humans (also known as democrats) value image, social standing, and material goods more than they ever could value human life even if their moral compass were ever repaired.


----------



## Unkotare

There is a clear and obvious reason why the impulse to perpetuate the species (directly, or as a surrogate) is the strongest impulse in the human condition. Any normally functioning (morally and intellectually) human recognizes this and feels it in the deepest recesses of their heart and soul. Some 'people' are not normally functioning, and/or are so shallow as to have no recesses if they have a heart and soul at all.


----------



## SAYIT

BWK said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot and you spew nonsense. You're also unable to think outside your indoctrinated bubble world. Mocking you is the only alternative
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance in the form of total ad hominem is on full display here. You couldn't have an  intelligent discussion over Biological sciences  if your life depended on it.
Click to expand...

Biological sciences? Biological sciences? We are discussing the slaughter and flushing of 800,000 babies/yr and you think it's about "biological sciences? No wonder you are so leftarded.


----------



## Vandalshandle

What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:

Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973


----------



## SAYIT

sealybobo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Would you say that about your own life?
> 
> 
> 
> So we need a cut off. Do I think a healthy fetus should be aborted at 7 months? No. But 3? Sure. Why? Because life isn’t that precious. I’m over 3 months old
Click to expand...

Not judging by your posts.


sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don our laws confirm what you a e saying? Killing someone’s pet will give you jail time. Abortion is completely legal...
Click to expand...

Because our laws are often political in nature, not ethical or justified but if you can't see the INHUMANITY in slaughtering babes-in-the-womb or our adult responsibility to defend them, you just can't see it.


----------



## beagle9

PoliticalChic said:


> "In New York it was the Democrat elected Assembly and governor who passed, signed into law, and then gave themselves a standing ovation on the dead-of-night passage of that state’s new legalization of killing children after they had been born.
> 
> In Virginia it was a Democrat governor who eerily described on morning radio step by step what happens when they decide whether a born child has the right to live or be killed.
> 
> ... three NYC Democrat-controlled zip codes are the only ones where abortions outnumber live births.
> 
> Democrats have argued for mandatory tax-payer funding for low income women to have their children killed without having to pay for it.
> 
> ...this week Nancy Pelosi led the charge of Democrats and for the fiftieth consecutive time were able to kill legislation that prevented post birth killing of children already born. Akin to the dead of night New York State Assembly vote—Democrats on the national stage voted to keep the killing of born children—legal."
> What Is It With Democrats And Death?


I don't call them the *Demon*-crats for nothing.


----------



## beagle9

Vandalshandle said:


> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973


Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby. 

Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??

Hard to tell anymore.


----------



## NotYourBody

PoliticalChic said:


> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.



Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973


So what's your problem with following the Constitutuon in this one instance?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem with following the Constitutuon in this one instance?
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, other than a few hillbilly states who have passed laws that were intentionally written so that they would be reviewed by the SC, we ARE following the Constitution. And, if my daughter decided that she wants an abortion, she lives in a state that puts a premium on personal freedom, and can have it.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
Click to expand...


I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed. 

That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....

Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies. 

Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem with following the Constitutuon in this one instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, other than a few hillbilly states who have passed laws that were intentionally written so that they would be reviewed by the SC, we ARE following the Constitution. And, if my daughter decided that she wants an abortion, she lives in a state that puts a premium on personal freedom, and can have it.
Click to expand...

No, we are not. Right now, Roe has nullified States Rights. Thos PROGRESSIVE states (Alabama) are operating outside the "law" of the SC. That is why this must be challenged and struck down.

And, you raised a daughter who would even consider dismembering a baby like this? I hope shes a better human being than you.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> Anyone who cannot see that life is most precious of all, really has no business calling themselves human. Of course by their attitudes and behaviors, it is clear that many of these non-humans (also known as democrats) value image, social standing, and material goods more than they ever could value human life even if their moral compass were ever repaired.


And we are NOT going away. Deal with it.


----------



## NotYourBody

Unkotare said:


> There is a clear and obvious reason why the impulse to perpetuate the species (directly, or as a surrogate) is the strongest impulse in the human condition. Any normally functioning (morally and intellectually) human recognizes this and feels it in the deepest recesses of their heart and soul. Some 'people' are not normally functioning, and/or are so shallow as to have no recesses if they have a heart and soul at all.


Is this why men are unable to control their sperm?

Unfortunate, because that puts men at a real disadvantage in the abortion debate.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem with following the Constitutuon in this one instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, other than a few hillbilly states who have passed laws that were intentionally written so that they would be reviewed by the SC, we ARE following the Constitution. And, if my daughter decided that she wants an abortion, she lives in a state that puts a premium on personal freedom, and can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we are not. Right now, Roe has nullified States Rights. Thos PROGRESSIVE states (Alabama) are operating outside the "law" of the SC. That is why this must be challenged and struck down.
> 
> And, you raised a daughter who would even consider dismembering a baby like this? I hope shes a better human being than you.
Click to expand...


Did you get that Supreme Court seat yet? It wasn't in the news, so I am having trouble understanding how you have managed to change the law of the land....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem with following the Constitutuon in this one instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, other than a few hillbilly states who have passed laws that were intentionally written so that they would be reviewed by the SC, we ARE following the Constitution. And, if my daughter decided that she wants an abortion, she lives in a state that puts a premium on personal freedom, and can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we are not. Right now, Roe has nullified States Rights. Thos PROGRESSIVE states (Alabama) are operating outside the "law" of the SC. That is why this must be challenged and struck down.
> 
> And, you raised a daughter who would even consider dismembering a baby like this? I hope shes a better human being than you.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

States don’t have the ‘right’ to violate citizens’ protected liberties.

States and local jurisdictions are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the decisions of the Supreme Court – decisions which become the law of the land.


----------



## SweetSue92

BWK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.
> 
> But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....you've went over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They fall in line behind the most insane, absurd, counter-intuitive ideas possible.
> 
> It cannot be said often enough: Liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!
Click to expand...


You haven't even MADE a coherent argument let alone won it.


----------



## SweetSue92

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why don our laws confirm what you a e saying? Killing someone’s pet will give you jail time. Abortion is completely legal.
> 
> And you have the choice not to get one
Click to expand...


Are you asking why do people make laws that are immoral, dumb or wrong?

I don't know. But as Exhibit A I give you Nazi Germany, and afterward everyone said they were "Just following the law". Saying "it's not illegal" is a shoddy, really crappy argument


----------



## SweetSue92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem with following the Constitutuon in this one instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, other than a few hillbilly states who have passed laws that were intentionally written so that they would be reviewed by the SC, we ARE following the Constitution. And, if my daughter decided that she wants an abortion, she lives in a state that puts a premium on personal freedom, and can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we are not. Right now, Roe has nullified States Rights. Thos PROGRESSIVE states (Alabama) are operating outside the "law" of the SC. That is why this must be challenged and struck down.
> 
> And, you raised a daughter who would even consider dismembering a baby like this? I hope shes a better human being than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> States don’t have the ‘right’ to violate citizens’ protected liberties.
> 
> States and local jurisdictions are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the decisions of the Supreme Court – decisions which become the law of the land.
Click to expand...


All those laws once upheld SLAVERY genius


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.
Click to expand...


Are you 17 years old? 

Come to think of it, I have known many 17 yo more mature than this, for real


----------



## Death Angel

SweetSue92 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you 17 years old?
> 
> Come to think of it, I have known many 17 yo more mature than this, for real
Click to expand...

We have one who ripped their opinions to shreds, but they're too stupid to even realize it.


----------



## SweetSue92

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cannot see that life is most precious of all, really has no business calling themselves human. Of course by their attitudes and behaviors, it is clear that many of these non-humans (also known as democrats) value image, social standing, and material goods more than they ever could value human life even if their moral compass were ever repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> And we are NOT going away. Deal with it.
Click to expand...


NotYourBody: IT'S MY BODY IT'S MY BODY AND IF WANT TO KILL ALL MY BABIES I WILL!! YOU CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT!!!

**Every decent man with testosterone levels high enough to actually impregnate a woman slinks away**


----------



## SweetSue92

Death Angel said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you 17 years old?
> 
> Come to think of it, I have known many 17 yo more mature than this, for real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have one who ripped their opinions to shreds, but they're too stupid to even realize it.
Click to expand...


They stand on defunct talking points and claim victory. 

It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for them.


----------



## BWK

Unkotare said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again folks, we see the grotesque failure of those on the Right who are inadequately prepared to lock horns with the truth, and accurate information. So, to hide from it, they attack the opposing side. Cheap shots by cowards are the crumbs we are left to debate with. Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot and you spew nonsense. You're also unable to think outside your indoctrinated bubble world.
> 
> Mocking you is the only alternative
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance in the form of total ad hominem is on full display here. You couldn't have an  intelligent discussion over Biological sciences  if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you ignorant toad, you stated an unfertlized egg discarded is an abortion
> 
> The definition of abortion is the termination of a human pregnancy. If the egg isn't fertilized there is no pregnancy you dumbed downed jackass
> 
> Sit your fucking stupid ass down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......according to science, that egg is life. And by the way, so is the sperm.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not. You fail science.
Click to expand...

And you're the instructor on Science.     That'll be the day. Please, elaborate instructor. Your seven word lesson, didn't seem to tell us too much.  You folks are a trip.


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cannot see that life is most precious of all, really has no business calling themselves human. Of course by their attitudes and behaviors, it is clear that many of these non-humans (also known as democrats) value image, social standing, and material goods more than they ever could value human life even if their moral compass were ever repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> And we are NOT going away. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NotYourBody: IT'S MY BODY IT'S MY BODY AND IF WANT TO KILL ALL MY BABIES I WILL!! YOU CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT!!!
> 
> **Every decent man with testosterone levels high enough to actually impregnate a woman slinks away**
Click to expand...




The Purge said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren’t most Baka fans republican conservatives? Why a e they getting abortions? Choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know...perhaps it is the ones in state  who aren't  getting abortions...most black aren't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think most anti abortion women have had abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't  think...because the fucked up women you know want it!...Easy cheap contraceptives AND make the taxpayer pay for it.
Click to expand...

And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem with following the Constitutuon in this one instance?
Click to expand...

He already is.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.
Click to expand...

They're totally insane, and dangerous to a healthy society.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
Click to expand...

Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
Click to expand...

No mention of the man's responsibility, because the misogynists look at women  as "Handmaids" to serve them.


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you 17 years old?
> 
> Come to think of it, I have known many 17 yo more mature than this, for real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have one who ripped their opinions to shreds, but they're too stupid to even realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They stand on defunct talking points and claim victory.
> 
> It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for them.
Click to expand...

Proud to stand over mine for sure. You haven't debunked one of them yet with anything at all that resembles intelligent debate. Oh, that's right, the radical anti-abortion crowd only use ad hominem to fight their battles and facts be damned right?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NotYourBody said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.
Click to expand...




The vulgarity pretty much identifies the gutter you belong in.

Not caring about the slaughter of an innocent fits right in.

Be gone.


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why don our laws confirm what you a e saying? Killing someone’s pet will give you jail time. Abortion is completely legal.
> 
> And you have the choice not to get one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking why do people make laws that are immoral, dumb or wrong?
> 
> I don't know. But as Exhibit A I give you Nazi Germany, and afterward everyone said they were "Just following the law". Saying "it's not illegal" is a shoddy, really crappy argument
Click to expand...

Yea, it's an argument for after birth developed human beings who exhibit pain, and consciousness. Which isn't the same thing as the law we have now for the unborn.


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vulgarity pretty much identifies the gutter you belong in.
> 
> Not caring about the slaughter of an innocent fits right in.
> 
> Be gone.
Click to expand...

So, you throw out "slaughter" now  with "killing and murder." Congratulations! You've still managed to say nothing and argue nothing proving they exist with the unborn. You are the quite the ultimate fail.  All these claims, and you got doodly squat to back it up with.

*Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.  *Let's try this again with these pro-life ignoramuses and see if they can present us with some miracle counter argument. Lol! Don't count your chickens with that one folks. We're at post #1943, and they haven't said shit yet.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Quite a long thread.
Excellent....it should be.

Perhaps, time for a review.


1.      What we could have at one day into fetal development is life. If you found this on another planet, you say you found life. Performing the life functions and having a unique DNA

2.      Baby or not….the word is still ‘human life.’

3.      Viability is not an argument…or you are claiming a 2-3 year old could be aborted….or an elder in a nursing home

4.      Democrat platform: infanticide

5.      Woman in video shout your abortion…’seems easier no condom’ inconvenient…like raising your own child

6.      Women’s freedom necessitates the unborn

7.      Devaluing motherhood in favor of a career

8.      Rape and incest…..nearly nonexistent

9.      Not their body….two distinct individuals

10.  You were complacent in the creation….consensual sex

11.  The use of the term abortion sanitizes the act…..violent, homicidal act dismemberment of an incipient human life.

12.  Safety….but it’s safer for mothers to never leave home, but we don’t encourage it  questionable whether health of the mother actually exist…it’s just the convenience of the mother

13.  Irish investigation…died of sepsis not due to pregnancy….Ireland changed the law to allow abortion based on misreading the facts.

14.  Restrict lives of women? No one plans to do this to women

15.  The Right is far more liable to punish rapists and criminals. The Left….children

16.  Overpopulation argument….Malthus….proven false

17.  Abortion lowers the crime rate….how do you know which pre-born humans will be criminals?

18.  None of these arguments are based on religion. But this is: sanctity of human life. ‘in the image of God’

19. The life of a new, distinct, unique individual begins when the strands from the mother and father form that special double helix of DNA.



It appears that there are those of us who get our insight from the NYTimes, and there are those who get it from the Bible.

I'll go with Genesis 1:26


----------



## PoliticalChic




----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you 17 years old?
> 
> Come to think of it, I have known many 17 yo more mature than this, for real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have one who ripped their opinions to shreds, but they're too stupid to even realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They stand on defunct talking points and claim victory.
> 
> It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for them.
Click to expand...

Yea right! Lol!    * Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.   *Debunked my ass.


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> Quite a long thread.
> Excellent....it should be.
> 
> Perhaps, time for a review.
> 
> 
> 1.      What we could have at one day into fetal development is life. If you found this on another planet, you say you found life. Performing the life functions and having a unique DNA
> 
> 2.      Baby or not….the word is still ‘human life.’
> 
> 3.      Viability is not an argument…or you are claiming a 2-3 year old could be aborted….or an elder in a nursing home
> 
> 4.      Democrat platform: infanticide
> 
> 5.      Woman in video shout your abortion…’seems easier no condom’ inconvenient…like raising your own child
> 
> 6.      Women’s freedom necessitates the unborn
> 
> 7.      Devaluing motherhood in favor of a career
> 
> 8.      Rape and incest…..nearly nonexistent
> 
> 9.      Not their body….two distinct individuals
> 
> 10.  You were complacent in the creation….consensual sex
> 
> 11.  The use of the term abortion sanitizes the act…..violent, homicidal act dismemberment of an incipient human life.
> 
> 12.  Safety….but it’s safer for mothers to never leave home, but we don’t encourage it  questionable whether health of the mother actually exist…it’s just the convenience of the mother
> 
> 13.  Irish investigation…died of sepsis not due to pregnancy….Ireland changed the law to allow abortion based on misreading the facts.
> 
> 14.  Restrict lives of women? No one plans to do this to women
> 
> 15.  The Right is far more liable to punish rapists and criminals. The Left….children
> 
> 16.  Overpopulation argument….Malthus….proven false
> 
> 17.  Abortion lowers the crime rate….how do you know which pre-born humans will be criminals?
> 
> 18.  None of these arguments are based on religion. But this is: sanctity of human life. ‘in the image of God’
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that there are those of us who get our insight from the NYTimes, and there are those who get it from the Bible.
> 
> I'll go with Genesis 1:26


And none of them are based on fact. Your first argument is especially amusing. We aren't on another planet, or did you not know? 

"Rape and incest nearly nonexistent?" No basis in fact. 

"Restrict lives of women?" Are you a glutton for punishment? Women, to this day, have never been treated as equal in the work force. Where in the hell have you been? That restricts the lives of women if you haven't figured that out for yourself? Lol! 

And here's the very, very, very, best one. The one where you ignored on multiple occasions my question I asked you in the post above. Does everyone see how cowards try and distract, just so they are not accountable to questions posed to them. Folks, you want exhibit A of running and hiding with distractions, this is it. Lol! What a bunch of losers. 

When have I distracted or run away from any questions about abortion, life, killing, and murder, or science? Answer, not one. We all can see now who the real cowards and distractors  are in this debate. And it sure as hell isn't the Left. Carry on with your distractions and running. What a bunch of bull shitters.


----------



## Death Angel

BWK said:


> Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer?


We did. MANY TIMES. Occupy your time and find it. You're not interested in LEARNING, just babbling


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


>


See how ridiculous their shit is? Lol!


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer?
> 
> 
> 
> We did. MANY TIMES. Occupy your time and find it. You're not interested in LEARNING, just babbling
Click to expand...

You're lying. There is no answer. Because you can't. None exist.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Death Angel said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer?
> 
> 
> 
> We did. MANY TIMES. Occupy your time and find it. You're not interested in LEARNING, just babbling
Click to expand...




It's important to keep that lying dunce posting.....he is our best weapon.


----------



## Death Angel

BWK said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer?
> 
> 
> 
> We did. MANY TIMES. Occupy your time and find it. You're not interested in LEARNING, just babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lying. There is no answer. Because you can't. None exist.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to give you the answer again and I'm not going to give you one of the many post numbers. You want to be spoon fed and you wont accept the answer anyway.

Do you own damn homework!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Death Angel said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer?
> 
> 
> 
> We did. MANY TIMES. Occupy your time and find it. You're not interested in LEARNING, just babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lying. There is no answer. Because you can't. None exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to give you the answer again and I'm not going to give you one of the many post numbers. You want to be spoon fed and you wont accept the answer anyway.
> 
> Do you own damn homework!
Click to expand...



It won't matter.

For the weakest minds, the indoctrination is indelible.

Bet he is a government school grad.

Maybe even the valedictorian of summer school.


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer?
> 
> 
> 
> We did. MANY TIMES. Occupy your time and find it. You're not interested in LEARNING, just babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's important to keep that lying dunce posting.....he is our best weapon.
Click to expand...

Making pro-lifers look like idiots is fun, but it does eventually have an expiration. Still researching your answers to my questions I see.


----------



## BWK

PoliticalChic said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer?
> 
> 
> 
> We did. MANY TIMES. Occupy your time and find it. You're not interested in LEARNING, just babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lying. There is no answer. Because you can't. None exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to give you the answer again and I'm not going to give you one of the many post numbers. You want to be spoon fed and you wont accept the answer anyway.
> 
> Do you own damn homework!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It won't matter.
> 
> For the weakest minds, the indoctrination is indelible.
> 
> Bet he is a government school grad.
> 
> Maybe even the valedictorian of summer school.
Click to expand...

Keep researching those answers, because we know you are.


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer?
> 
> 
> 
> We did. MANY TIMES. Occupy your time and find it. You're not interested in LEARNING, just babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lying. There is no answer. Because you can't. None exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to give you the answer again and I'm not going to give you one of the many post numbers. You want to be spoon fed and you wont accept the answer anyway.
> 
> Do you own damn homework!
Click to expand...

I know. That's the beauty of you not answering. The first answer you gave, if you gave it, doesn't exist.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you represent is the close and intimate association of Liberals/Democrats, with their forebears.
> 
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> Your posts are a great service to our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those of us who just don't give a fuck what you think because in the end it doesn't matter. So keep hollering. It'll get you just as far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you 17 years old?
> 
> Come to think of it, I have known many 17 yo more mature than this, for real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have one who ripped their opinions to shreds, but they're too stupid to even realize it.
Click to expand...


Mine is not opinion. My position is FACT and REALITY. I'm sorry that's so disturbing to you.


----------



## NotYourBody

PoliticalChic said:


> The vulgarity pretty much identifies the gutter you belong in.
> 
> Not caring about the slaughter of an innocent fits right in.
> 
> Be gone.



No. I get a kick out of seeing you folks rant and rave against my unbeatable position.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
Click to expand...

Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.

No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem with following the Constitutuon in this one instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, other than a few hillbilly states who have passed laws that were intentionally written so that they would be reviewed by the SC, we ARE following the Constitution. And, if my daughter decided that she wants an abortion, she lives in a state that puts a premium on personal freedom, and can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we are not. Right now, Roe has nullified States Rights. Thos PROGRESSIVE states (Alabama) are operating outside the "law" of the SC. That is why this must be challenged and struck down.
> 
> And, you raised a daughter who would even consider dismembering a baby like this? I hope shes a better human being than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> States don’t have the ‘right’ to violate citizens’ protected liberties.
> 
> States and local jurisdictions are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the decisions of the Supreme Court – decisions which become the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Why are you so afraid of affording those laws to the life growing in the woman's womb ???


----------



## buttercup

Ok, here's my review of this thread.

*BWK *- Failed 5th grade biology, completely dismissed a LONG list of excerpts/quotes from biology textbooks, scientists and doctors covering decades stating that human life begins at conception. Then posts an _opinion_ piece from an msm site as proof and claims victory.   Lots of projecting and living in upside-down land.

*C_CLAYTON_JONES* - Will ONLY talk about the law, even after it was pointed out that laws are not absolute truths never to be questioned, remember slavery was legal?

*Vandalshandle* - Snarky one-liners, no actual debating (as far as I saw) and refuses to look at anything that contradicts his view.

*NotYourBody  - "*You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!!  You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!! You can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, la la la la la !!!!!"  (with fingers in ears and eyes closed)   

Zero debating, zero defending her position, zero engaging in an actual discussion, will not read anything more than 3 sentences, basically just trolling like a rebellious child.

*dblack  - *Little to no debating the actual topic, only emotional, paranoid comments about future enforcement, and other red herrings. He _was_ the only one who answered the question on Scott Peterson, so I do give him credit for that, even though he was wrong.

Did I forget anyone?


----------



## Death Angel

buttercup said:


> Ok, here's my review of this thread.
> 
> *BWK *- Failed 5th grade biology, completely dismissed a LONG list of excerpts/quotes from biology textbooks, scientists and doctors covering decades stating that human life begins at conception. Then posts an _opinion_ piece from an msm site as proof and claims victory.   Lots of projecting and living in upside-down land.
> 
> *C_CLAYTON_JONES* - Will ONLY talk about the law, even after it was pointed out that laws are not absolute truths never to be questioned, remember slavery was legal?
> 
> *Vandalshandle* - Snarky one-liners, no actual debating (as far as I saw) and refuses to look at anything that contradicts his view.
> 
> *NotYourBody  - "*You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!!  You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!! You can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, la la la la la !!!!!"  (with fingers in ears and eyes closed)
> 
> Zero debating, zero defending her position, zero engaging in an actual discussion, will not read anything more than 3 sentences, basically just trolling like a rebellious child.
> 
> *dblack  - *Little to no debating the actual topic, only emotional, paranoid comments about future enforcement, and other red herrings. He _was_ the only one who answered the question on Scott Peterson, so I do give him credit for that, even though he was wrong.
> 
> Did I forget anyone?


That was GREAT! Funny because its 100% true. Not much in the way of "competition."


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.



The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess. 

You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.

You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.

You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.

If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!

You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!! 

Bless your precious hearts.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> Ok, here's my review of this thread.
> 
> *BWK *- Failed 5th grade biology, completely dismissed a LONG list of excerpts/quotes from biology textbooks, scientists and doctors covering decades stating that human life begins at conception. Then posts an _opinion_ piece from an msm site as proof and claims victory.   Lots of projecting and living in upside-down land.
> 
> *C_CLAYTON_JONES* - Will ONLY talk about the law, even after it was pointed out that laws are not absolute truths never to be questioned, remember slavery was legal?
> 
> *Vandalshandle* - Snarky one-liners, no actual debating (as far as I saw) and refuses to look at anything that contradicts his view.
> 
> *NotYourBody  - "*You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!!  You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!! You can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, la la la la la !!!!!"  (with fingers in ears and eyes closed)
> 
> Zero debating, zero defending her position, zero engaging in an actual discussion, will not read anything more than 3 sentences, basically just trolling like a rebellious child.
> 
> *dblack  - *Little to no debating the actual topic, only emotional, paranoid comments about future enforcement, and other red herrings. He _was_ the only one who answered the question on Scott Peterson, so I do give him credit for that, even though he was wrong.
> 
> Did I forget anyone?



I got TWO paragraphs!!!  Winning!!


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess.
> 
> You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.
> 
> You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.
> 
> You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.
> 
> If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!
> 
> You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!!
> 
> Bless your precious hearts.
Click to expand...

THEBABYISNOTHERBODY


----------



## NotYourBody

Here's my review of this thread -

*NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.

So far....no takers. So much Winning!


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess.
> 
> You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.
> 
> You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.
> 
> You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.
> 
> If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!
> 
> You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!!
> 
> Bless your precious hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THEBABYISNOTHERBODY
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourself that. Doesn't change a thing. You STILL have no control in the situation.


----------



## NotYourBody

I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.

The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.

Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.

$1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.

Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?

Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.


----------



## The Purge

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cannot see that life is most precious of all, really has no business calling themselves human. Of course by their attitudes and behaviors, it is clear that many of these non-humans (also known as democrats) value image, social standing, and material goods more than they ever could value human life even if their moral compass were ever repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> And we are NOT going away. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NotYourBody: IT'S MY BODY IT'S MY BODY AND IF WANT TO KILL ALL MY BABIES I WILL!! YOU CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT!!!
> 
> **Every decent man with testosterone levels high enough to actually impregnate a woman slinks away**
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren’t most Baka fans republican conservatives? Why a e they getting abortions? Choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know...perhaps it is the ones in state  who aren't  getting abortions...most black aren't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think most anti abortion women have had abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't  think...because the fucked up women you know want it!...Easy cheap contraceptives AND make the taxpayer pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
Click to expand...

Well who do you think controls the SEX ACT...A RAPING MALE???


----------



## PoliticalChic

NotYourBody said:


> I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.
> 
> The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.
> 
> Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.
> 
> $1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.
> 
> Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?
> 
> Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.





How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.


Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.


----------



## Dana7360

Death Angel said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion.  The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.
> 
> Who will raise it?
> 
> Who is responsible for such a being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The parents. See how easy this is
Click to expand...




Who are the parents?


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
Click to expand...

You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State. 
*
You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.


----------



## NotYourBody

PoliticalChic said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.
> 
> The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.
> 
> Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.
> 
> $1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.
> 
> Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?
> 
> Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.
> 
> 
> Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.
Click to expand...


No. I'll control my body and what is inside. Not you. My view is I don't give a fuck what you want because you are not in the position of power in this situation. I am. It doesn't matter what you want.

It's good to showcase the pro-lifers true motives, which have always been about control. That's why you have failed to stop abortion. You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem with following the Constitutuon in this one instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, other than a few hillbilly states who have passed laws that were intentionally written so that they would be reviewed by the SC, we ARE following the Constitution. And, if my daughter decided that she wants an abortion, she lives in a state that puts a premium on personal freedom, and can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we are not. Right now, Roe has nullified States Rights. Thos PROGRESSIVE states (Alabama) are operating outside the "law" of the SC. That is why this must be challenged and struck down.
> 
> And, you raised a daughter who would even consider dismembering a baby like this? I hope shes a better human being than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> States don’t have the ‘right’ to violate citizens’ protected liberties.
> 
> States and local jurisdictions are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the decisions of the Supreme Court – decisions which become the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so afraid of affording those laws to the life growing in the woman's womb ???
Click to expand...

You sure are talking a lot of shit, but you aren't proving a whole lot of shit.  *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State. *


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
Click to expand...


Princeton good enough for ya? Now shut up loudmouth

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception


----------



## Dana7360

SassyIrishLass said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
Click to expand...




So what?

Guess what? 

Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.

You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation. 

It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.

All of which are extremely unconstitutional.

Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you. 

Stop taking that same right from everyone else.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dana7360 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> 
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
Click to expand...


Oh shut up with your nonsense. You know it's life so stop the fucking charade. Loon


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Princeton good enough for ya? Now shut up loudmouth
> 
> Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
Click to expand...

Way ahead of you. Read Princeton up and down years ago. They are only theories. Even Princeton in their summary pieces cannot tell you when life begins. They themselves tell us that. Thanks, but it's obvious you have not read all of Princeton's publications. They aren't so stupid  as to commit to such a stupid conclusion. They aren't God. You seem to have real problems understanding that. I argued for years using Princeton as the basis for my conclusions. Lol! Funny that you try and hijack their message.


----------



## buttercup

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Princeton good enough for ya? Now shut up loudmouth
> 
> Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
Click to expand...


He ignored the other 10,000 quotes from medical textbooks and scientists, so I'm sure he'll ignore that too.  In other words, we could post 100,000 statements from scientists, and he would STILL claim "Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about when is the beginning of life"?"     lolololol  Ohhh, my word.

He's being flat out dishonest, at this point.


----------



## NotYourBody

There's also this tidbit the pro-lifers insist on ignoring - 

In the time it takes a woman to gestate ONE unwanted pregnancy, a man can literally create THOUSANDS of unwanted pregnancies.

So many opportunities to reduce the need for abortion, yet the pro-lifers can only think of one. It's not my fault you're stupid like that.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

buttercup said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Princeton good enough for ya? Now shut up loudmouth
> 
> Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He ignored the other 10,000 quotes from medical textbooks and scientists, so I'm sure he'll ignore that too.  In other words, we could post 100,000 statements from scientists, and he would STILL claim "Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about when is the beginning of life"?"     lolololol  Ohhh, my word.
> 
> He's being flat out dishonest, at this point.
Click to expand...


They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards


----------



## Death Angel

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Princeton good enough for ya? Now shut up loudmouth
> 
> Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
Click to expand...

Nope. Theyll tell you Princeton is tainted because of their religious origins even though they abandoned God a loooong Time ago



> *Princeton University* was *founded* at Elizabeth, New Jersey, in 1746 as the *College* of New Jersey. New Light Presbyterians *founded* the *College* of New Jersey, later *Princeton University*, in 1746 in order to train ministers dedicated to their views


----------



## PoliticalChic

NotYourBody said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.
> 
> The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.
> 
> Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.
> 
> $1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.
> 
> Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?
> 
> Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.
> 
> 
> Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I'll control my body and what is inside. Not you. My view is I don't give a fuck what you want because you are not in the position of power in this situation. I am. It doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> It's good to showcase the pro-lifers true motives, which have always been about control. That's why you have failed to stop abortion. You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...




It's not your body, you dunce.


Unless you're claiming that the pregnant woman has four arms and four legs, two types of blood, two sets of fingerprints and different DNA from every cell in the separate human being's body.


But....you are a dunce, so perhaps you are.


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.


An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
As Randy Alcorn states in his book _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on _two_ counts of murder.
Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2


The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, _God is Not Great_:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11.  No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At _no_ point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes


Randy Alcorn, _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_ (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_, 58.
Christopher Hitchens, _God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything_ (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
Part of the Mother’s Body?



Now, get lost, ugly.


----------



## NotYourBody

PoliticalChic said:


> Now, get lost, ugly.


You really are a control freak aren't you!

You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.

Try again. Or give up. I don't care.

I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.

edit - you seem confused about my position. I take the position that I will not allow you to control MY BODY (hence the NotYourBody screen name), or any fetus inside of my body. Whether you think the fetus is part of my body or not is irrelevant to my position.


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards



I know. It's hard when you are unable to force your will on someone else.


----------



## buttercup

Dana7360 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> 
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
Click to expand...


If you think abortion is a religious issue, that is either ignorant or dishonest.   SCIENCE is clear on when life begins, it has nothing to do with religion, that is why there are a growing number of secular or atheist pro-lifers.

Enough with the outdated ignorant stereotypes, set aside your knee-jerk political biases and open your eyes.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NotYourBody said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, get lost, ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a control freak aren't you!
> 
> You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.
> 
> Try again. Or give up. I don't care.
> 
> I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.
Click to expand...



Time and again when Liberals are left speechless, with no way to deny what I post.....they claim not to read it.


I don't care if you read it or not....but you can't deny it. 
And that's the point.

You're a dunce and I believe we've just proven it.....together.
I'd say liar, too.....but I said Liberal already.

Everyone who's read our individual posts knows it......and so do you.



As for you body.....don't mention it again until you can get the marks of those ten foot poles off.


----------



## NotYourBody

PoliticalChic said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, get lost, ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a control freak aren't you!
> 
> You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.
> 
> Try again. Or give up. I don't care.
> 
> I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again when Liberals are left speechless, with no way to deny what I post.....they claim not to read it.
> 
> 
> I don't care if you read it or not....but you can't deny it.
> And that's the point.
> 
> You're a dunce and I believe we've just proven it.....together.
> I'd say liar, too.....but I said Liberal already.
> 
> Everyone who's read our individual posts knows it......and so do you.
> 
> 
> 
> As for you body.....don't mention it again until you can get the marks of those ten foot poles off.
Click to expand...


/yawn.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. It's hard when you are unable to force your will on someone else.
Click to expand...



The irony of that post....bet it escapes you.

You have no trouble forcing your will on a defenseless fetus.....the etymology of the term is 'offspring.'

You didn't know that, did you, dolt?



So, you're a government school grad?


----------



## buttercup

PoliticalChic said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.
> 
> The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.
> 
> Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.
> 
> $1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.
> 
> Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?
> 
> Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.
> 
> 
> Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I'll control my body and what is inside. Not you. My view is I don't give a fuck what you want because you are not in the position of power in this situation. I am. It doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> It's good to showcase the pro-lifers true motives, which have always been about control. That's why you have failed to stop abortion. You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not your body, you dunce.
> 
> 
> Unless you're claiming that the pregnant woman has four arms and four legs, two types of blood, two sets of fingerprints and different DNA from every cell in the separate human being's body.
> 
> 
> But....you are a dunce, so perhaps you are.
> 
> 
> The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is a separate and distinct human being.
> 
> There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.
> 
> 
> An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
> In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
> In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
> As Randy Alcorn states in his book _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
> It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
> When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
> It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on _two_ counts of murder.
> Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
> Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2
> 
> 
> The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, _God is Not Great_:
> As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3
> 
> Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.
> 
> 11.  No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At _no_ point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.
> 
> Footnotes
> 
> 
> Randy Alcorn, _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_ (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
> Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_, 58.
> Christopher Hitchens, _God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything_ (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
> Part of the Mother’s Body?
> 
> 
> 
> Now, get lost, ugly.
Click to expand...


Excellent posts, but unfortunately the person you posted to says "tl;dr" to any post longer than 3 sentences, and refuses to look at anything that will contradict her view.  The epitome of willful blindness and willful ignorance.  You're dealing with the exact type of person described in Proverbs 1.


----------



## NotYourBody

NotYourBody said:


> So, you're a government school grad?


Tell me how you aim to stop me from getting an abortion if that is my decision. Until you can do that, I have no reason to read anything you type.

But you can't. And that's why you are so aggravated.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NotYourBody said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, get lost, ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a control freak aren't you!
> 
> You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.
> 
> Try again. Or give up. I don't care.
> 
> I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again when Liberals are left speechless, with no way to deny what I post.....they claim not to read it.
> 
> 
> I don't care if you read it or not....but you can't deny it.
> And that's the point.
> 
> You're a dunce and I believe we've just proven it.....together.
> I'd say liar, too.....but I said Liberal already.
> 
> Everyone who's read our individual posts knows it......and so do you.
> 
> 
> 
> As for you body.....don't mention it again until you can get the marks of those ten foot poles off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /yawn.
Click to expand...




Hey....wasn't that the same response you had to education????


But, heck.....thank you for coming by....until now, I had never met  the result of a first cousin marriage.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. It's hard when you are unable to force your will on someone else.
Click to expand...


You're a one trick pony, sock. Gfy


----------



## NotYourBody

Truth hurts!


----------



## PoliticalChic

buttercup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.
> 
> The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.
> 
> Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.
> 
> $1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.
> 
> Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?
> 
> Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.
> 
> 
> Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I'll control my body and what is inside. Not you. My view is I don't give a fuck what you want because you are not in the position of power in this situation. I am. It doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> It's good to showcase the pro-lifers true motives, which have always been about control. That's why you have failed to stop abortion. You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not your body, you dunce.
> 
> 
> Unless you're claiming that the pregnant woman has four arms and four legs, two types of blood, two sets of fingerprints and different DNA from every cell in the separate human being's body.
> 
> 
> But....you are a dunce, so perhaps you are.
> 
> 
> The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is a separate and distinct human being.
> 
> There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.
> 
> 
> An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
> In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
> In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
> As Randy Alcorn states in his book _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
> It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
> When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
> It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on _two_ counts of murder.
> Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
> Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2
> 
> 
> The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, _God is Not Great_:
> As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3
> 
> Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.
> 
> 11.  No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At _no_ point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.
> 
> Footnotes
> 
> 
> Randy Alcorn, _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_ (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
> Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_, 58.
> Christopher Hitchens, _God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything_ (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
> Part of the Mother’s Body?
> 
> 
> 
> Now, get lost, ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent posts, but unfortunately the person you posted to says "tl;dr" to any post longer than 3 sentences, and refuses to look at anything that will contradict her view.  The epitome of willful blindness and willful ignorance.  You're dealing with the exact type of person described in Proverbs 1.
Click to expand...




That's the training Liberals get in government school.

And....they lie. They read it, just can't find a way to respond to it.



Just between us, b, when I post it is to the 10 to 5 folks who read a thread but don't post in same.
It's to let those folks see the truth they've been denied in school and in the media.


So....keep on keepin' on!


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess.
> 
> You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.
> 
> You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.
> 
> You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.
> 
> If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!
> 
> You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!!
> 
> Bless your precious hearts.
Click to expand...

You libs/leftist are like arrogant petulant children who try to fool the grown ups, but it ain't working no matter how hard you try.

You try to use the stats prior to any law changing as if those stats would remain the same in violation of the law. If the law changes, then compliance will be next. Your 600,000 will instantly be reduced to a few thousand who would attempt to escape the law. Sadly that is what happens, but the help programs will be still intact or increased, but the monsters looking to extract living beings from their safe home inside their mothers womb will be a thing of the past. They will be unemployed or cross training into something else. Hopefully they will be unemployed/unemployable after the henious things that they have done.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, get lost, ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a control freak aren't you!
> 
> You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.
> 
> Try again. Or give up. I don't care.
> 
> I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again when Liberals are left speechless, with no way to deny what I post.....they claim not to read it.
> 
> 
> I don't care if you read it or not....but you can't deny it.
> And that's the point.
> 
> You're a dunce and I believe we've just proven it.....together.
> I'd say liar, too.....but I said Liberal already.
> 
> Everyone who's read our individual posts knows it......and so do you.
> 
> 
> 
> As for you body.....don't mention it again until you can get the marks of those ten foot poles off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /yawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....wasn't that the same response you had to education????
> 
> 
> But, heck.....thank you for coming by....until now, I had never met  the result of a first cousin marriage.
Click to expand...

TOS violation turn yerself in.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.
> 
> The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.
> 
> Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.
> 
> $1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.
> 
> Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?
> 
> Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.
> 
> 
> Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I'll control my body and what is inside. Not you. My view is I don't give a fuck what you want because you are not in the position of power in this situation. I am. It doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> It's good to showcase the pro-lifers true motives, which have always been about control. That's why you have failed to stop abortion. You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not your body, you dunce.
> 
> 
> Unless you're claiming that the pregnant woman has four arms and four legs, two types of blood, two sets of fingerprints and different DNA from every cell in the separate human being's body.
> 
> 
> But....you are a dunce, so perhaps you are.
> 
> 
> The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is a separate and distinct human being.
> 
> There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.
> 
> 
> An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
> In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
> In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
> As Randy Alcorn states in his book _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
> It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
> When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
> It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on _two_ counts of murder.
> Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
> Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2
> 
> 
> The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, _God is Not Great_:
> As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3
> 
> Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.
> 
> 11.  No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At _no_ point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.
> 
> Footnotes
> 
> 
> Randy Alcorn, _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_ (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
> Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, _Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments_, 58.
> Christopher Hitchens, _God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything_ (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
> Part of the Mother’s Body?
> 
> 
> 
> Now, get lost, ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent posts, but unfortunately the person you posted to says "tl;dr" to any post longer than 3 sentences, and refuses to look at anything that will contradict her view.  The epitome of willful blindness and willful ignorance.  You're dealing with the exact type of person described in Proverbs 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the training Liberals get in government school.
> 
> And....they lie. They read it, just can't find a way to respond to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Just between us, b, when I post it is to the 10 to 5 folks who read a thread but don't post in same.
> It's to let those folks see the truth they've been denied in school and in the media.
> 
> 
> So....keep on keepin' on!
Click to expand...

How would you know you are not from the USA...


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.
> 
> The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.
> 
> Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.
> 
> $1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.
> 
> Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?
> 
> Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.


Simple.... Once compliance is completed in any law, you won't have the convience of using your previous stats that you find so usable in the former situation, uh after compliance in the law is completed.

Backing away from the cliff is something we in this country have been doing for centuries. Do liberals/leftist think that they have sealed this nations fate ??? The arrogance of the left is astonishing these days, but they are facing a learning curve right now, so it's understandable.


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
Click to expand...

So you look at something that might appear to be dead to you, so you go ahead and thrust in the spike as so to ensure it's death although it may have been alive to begin with ??? You take chances like that in life do you ??? It's great you are not looked to in order to give life a chance, because it's obvious which way you would go.


----------



## NotYourBody

PoliticalChic said:


> Sooo....you're asking for a tissue?
> 
> 
> How you gonna use it, with that paper bag you're forced to wear?




Gosh I hope I can survive your devastating word assault.


----------



## Moonglow

NotYourBody said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo....you're asking for a tissue?
> 
> 
> How you gonna use it, with that paper bag you're forced to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh I hope I can survive your devastating word assault.
Click to expand...

Monosyllables are hard to deny.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess.
> 
> You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.
> 
> You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.
> 
> You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.
> 
> If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!
> 
> You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!!
> 
> Bless your precious hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You libs/leftist are like arrogant petulant children who try to fool the grown ups, but it ain't working no matter how hard you try.
> 
> You try to use the stats prior to any law changing as if those stats would remain the same in violation of the law. If the law changes, then compliance will be next. Your 600,000 will instantly be reduced to a few thousand who would attempt to escape the law. Sadly that is what happens, but the help programs will be still intact or increased, but the monsters looking to extract living beings from their safe home inside their mothers womb will be a thing of the past. They will be unemployed or cross training snto something else. Hopefully they will be unemployed/unemployable after the henious things that they have done.
Click to expand...


You better get to work on those scarlet letters. You're gonna need a lot.

$1,000,000 per fetus, and you can't control how many fetuses are unwanted. Are you gonna pay?


----------



## satrebil

20+ pages since last night and all I've seen is the same leftist posters refusing to acknowledge science and precedent while regurgitating their debunked talking points as NotYourBody cheer-leads with her juvenile "LA LA LA LA I'LL DO AS I PLEASE LA LA LA LA NO NO NO NO LA LA LA LA TTTHTHHHHBBBBPPPPPPTTTTT!!!!" antics. 

It's like watching a fucking kindergarten classroom.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> Backing away from the cliff is something we in this country have been doing for centuries. Do liberals/leftist think that they have sealed this nations fate ??? The arrogance of the left is astonishing these days, but they are facing a learning curve right now, so it's understandable.



How will you achieve compliance? That's what I keep asking. What is your plan to take control of the fetus inside my uterus.

Spell it out. Don't be afraid.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess.
> 
> You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.
> 
> You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.
> 
> You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.
> 
> If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!
> 
> You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!!
> 
> Bless your precious hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You libs/leftist are like arrogant petulant children who try to fool the grown ups, but it ain't working no matter how hard you try.
> 
> You try to use the stats prior to any law changing as if those stats would remain the same in violation of the law. If the law changes, then compliance will be next. Your 600,000 will instantly be reduced to a few thousand who would attempt to escape the law. Sadly that is what happens, but the help programs will be still intact or increased, but the monsters looking to extract living beings from their safe home inside their mothers womb will be a thing of the past. They will be unemployed or cross training snto something else. Hopefully they will be unemployed/unemployable after the henious things that they have done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better get to work on those scarlet letters. You're gonna need a lot.
> 
> $1,000,000 per fetus, and you can't control how many fetuses are unwanted. Are you gonna pay?
Click to expand...

What do you think the stats we're in slavery before the laws were created against it ? Think about anything that laws have been created in order to lower the stats on or even stop a bad thing from affecting negatively civil society. If anyone was to buy into your bullcrap post or ideology, nothing would have ever changed for the better in this nation over time.  Now it's time to deal with the deplorabalism of abortion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NotYourBody said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo....you're asking for a tissue?
> 
> 
> How you gonna use it, with that paper bag you're forced to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh I hope I can survive your devastating word assault.
Click to expand...



No rematch.

You lost when you lied and said you didn't read the proof that the fetus is not part of your body.

Every reader saw the knockout.



There never was any hope for you once picked that obviously false avi.

You don't have a clue as to how much of a stereotype you are: a cookie-cutter collectivist.


----------



## NotYourBody

satrebil said:


> 20+ pages since last night and all I've seen is the same leftist posters refusing to acknowledge science and precedent while regurgitating their debunked talking points as NotYourBody cheer-leads with her juvenile "LA LA LA LA I'LL DO AS I PLEASE LA LA LA LA NO NO NO NO LA LA LA LA TTTHTHHHHBBBBPPPPPPTTTTT!!!!" antics.
> 
> It's like watching a fucking kindergarten classroom.


It is like kindergarten! 

You keep demanding I respond to your arguments when you have yet to give me one. single. reason. why I have to even read your arguments. You have no control! Yet, like a toddler, you insist that you do.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> What do you think the stats we're in slavery before the laws were created against it ? Think about anything that laws have been created in order to lower the stats on or even stop a bad thing from affecting negatively civil society. If anyone was to buy into your bullcrap post or ideology, nothing would have ever changed for the better in this nation over time.  Now it's time to deal with the deplorabalism of abortion.



Normally laws are effective because there is evidence of a crime that can be pursued. In this case, there is no missing person to look for, no body to be found. 

You don't even know there WAS a pregnancy.

Logical paths.....


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backing away from the cliff is something we in this country have been doing for centuries. Do liberals/leftist think that they have sealed this nations fate ??? The arrogance of the left is astonishing these days, but they are facing a learning curve right now, so it's understandable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you achieve compliance? That's what I keep asking. What is your plan to take control of the fetus inside my uterus.
> 
> Spell it out. Don't be afraid.
Click to expand...

Don't have to take control of you or your fetus, but to only issue you a notice of the law, and if you don't comply, and you have your baby killed, then you will suffer the penalty of that law or laws when passed.

Could be a huge fine with some prison time in order to make an example of those wishing to do such a thing beyond those who had chosen to violate the law.


----------



## NotYourBody

PoliticalChic said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo....you're asking for a tissue?
> 
> 
> How you gonna use it, with that paper bag you're forced to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh I hope I can survive your devastating word assault.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No rematch.
> 
> You lost when you lied and said you didn't read the proof that the fetus is not part of your body.
> 
> Every reader saw the knockout.
> 
> 
> 
> There never was any hope for you once picked that obviously false avi.
> 
> You don't have a clue as to how much of a stereotype you are: a cookie-cutter collectivist.
Click to expand...


Devastating, I'm sure.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backing away from the cliff is something we in this country have been doing for centuries. Do liberals/leftist think that they have sealed this nations fate ??? The arrogance of the left is astonishing these days, but they are facing a learning curve right now, so it's understandable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you achieve compliance? That's what I keep asking. What is your plan to take control of the fetus inside my uterus.
> 
> Spell it out. Don't be afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to take control of you or your fetus, but to only issue you a notice of the law, and if you don't comply, and you have your baby killed, then you will suffer the penalty of that law or laws when passed.
> 
> Could be a huge fine with some prison time in order to make an example of those wishing to do such a thing beyond those who had chosen to violate the law.
Click to expand...

I'm telling you today, right now, I WILL NOT comply.

Again, you have no way of knowing that I had an abortion. You think words on paper will stop me? Lol.

So hard for pro-lifers to figure this out. It's why you're so agonized.


----------



## beagle9

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the stats we're in slavery before the laws were created against it ? Think about anything that laws have been created in order to lower the stats on or even stop a bad thing from affecting negatively civil society. If anyone was to buy into your bullcrap post or ideology, nothing would have ever changed for the better in this nation over time.  Now it's time to deal with the deplorabalism of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normally laws are effective because there is evidence of a crime that can be pursued. In this case, there is no missing person to look for, no body to be found.
> 
> You don't even know there WAS a pregnancy.
> 
> Logical paths.....
Click to expand...

You sound like someone who would have some kind of weird thought process that includes killing a human being. Are you some kind of evil person or what ?? I mean listen to yourself carry on here in the way that you do.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> You sound like someone who would have some kind of weird thought process that includes killing a human being. Are you some kind of evil person or what ?? I mean listen to yourself carry on here in the way that you do.



I understand. Ad hominem is all you have left when logic fails.

I just hope that I can live through this bad dangerous word attack!

Try a little humor in the next attack, you'll have more fun with it.


----------



## Rustic

NotYourBody said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like someone who would have some kind of weird thought process that includes killing a human being. Are you some kind of evil person or what ?? I mean listen to yourself carry on here in the way that you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand. Ad hominem is all you have left when logic fails.
> 
> I just hope that I can live through this bad dangerous word attack!
> 
> Try a little humor in the next attack, you'll have more fun with it.
Click to expand...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the stats we're in slavery before the laws were created against it ? Think about anything that laws have been created in order to lower the stats on or even stop a bad thing from affecting negatively civil society. If anyone was to buy into your bullcrap post or ideology, nothing would have ever changed for the better in this nation over time.  Now it's time to deal with the deplorabalism of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normally laws are effective because there is evidence of a crime that can be pursued. In this case, there is no missing person to look for, no body to be found.
> 
> You don't even know there WAS a pregnancy.
> 
> Logical paths.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like someone who would have some kind of weird thought process that includes killing a human being. Are you some kind of evil person or what ?? I mean listen to yourself carry on here in the way that you do.
Click to expand...


I suspect that one has never been pg nor ever will be....two reasons I think it's male given it's vocabulary and two on the slim chance it's female no guy would touch it. It can't shut up


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you look at something that might appear to be dead to you, so you go ahead and thrust in the spike as so to ensure it's death although it may have been alive to begin with ??? You take chances like that in life do you ??? It's great you are not looked to in order to give life a chance, because it's obvious which way you would go.
Click to expand...

The question has been asked and asked again, and we get no answer. Folks, like it or not, the argument goes to pro-choice for the absence of intelligent debate with not answering the scientific and religious questions. The posters on the Right are not God, so they can't answer it that way, nor were they able to answer the questions scientifically with conclusive evidence. You lose. Game over.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess.
> 
> You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.
> 
> You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.
> 
> You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.
> 
> If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!
> 
> You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!!
> 
> Bless your precious hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You libs/leftist are like arrogant petulant children who try to fool the grown ups, but it ain't working no matter how hard you try.
> 
> You try to use the stats prior to any law changing as if those stats would remain the same in violation of the law. If the law changes, then compliance will be next. Your 600,000 will instantly be reduced to a few thousand who would attempt to escape the law. Sadly that is what happens, but the help programs will be still intact or increased, but the monsters looking to extract living beings from their safe home inside their mothers womb will be a thing of the past. They will be unemployed or cross training into something else. Hopefully they will be unemployed/unemployable after the henious things that they have done.
Click to expand...

You lose. You failed to engage the questions with proof or answers. You all are bull shitters with nothing.


----------



## dblack

Here's my review of this thread this far:

"It's different when we do it!"


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you look at something that might appear to be dead to you, so you go ahead and thrust in the spike as so to ensure it's death although it may have been alive to begin with ??? You take chances like that in life do you ??? It's great you are not looked to in order to give life a chance, because it's obvious which way you would go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question has been asked and asked again, and we get no answer. Folks, like it or not, the argument goes to pro-choice for the absence of intelligent debate with not answering the scientific and religious questions. The posters on the Right are not God, so they can't answer it that way, nor were they able to answer the questions scientifically with conclusive evidence. You lose. Game over.
Click to expand...


Its been answered numerous times you befuddled dumb fuck


----------



## satrebil

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess.
> 
> You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.
> 
> You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.
> 
> You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.
> 
> If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!
> 
> You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!!
> 
> Bless your precious hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You libs/leftist are like arrogant petulant children who try to fool the grown ups, but it ain't working no matter how hard you try.
> 
> You try to use the stats prior to any law changing as if those stats would remain the same in violation of the law. If the law changes, then compliance will be next. Your 600,000 will instantly be reduced to a few thousand who would attempt to escape the law. Sadly that is what happens, but the help programs will be still intact or increased, but the monsters looking to extract living beings from their safe home inside their mothers womb will be a thing of the past. They will be unemployed or cross training into something else. Hopefully they will be unemployed/unemployable after the henious things that they have done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lose. You failed to engage the questions with proof or answers. You all are bull shitters with nothing.
Click to expand...


Everyone is going to 'lose' when all you do is retort with "that's not an answer, give me another one". You don't want an answer, you just want to be a self-righteous prick on an internet forum so you can stroke your e-peen.


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> I suspect that one has never been pg nor ever will be....two reasons I think it's male given it's vocabulary and two on the slim chance it's female no guy would touch it. It can't shut up



My grade school teachers did always say that I talk too much in class.


----------



## Death Angel

"Convince me LIFE begins at conception"


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that one has never been pg nor ever will be....two reasons I think it's male given it's vocabulary and two on the slim chance it's female no guy would touch it. It can't shut up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My grade school teachers did always say that I talk too much in class.
Click to expand...

Which is fine if you actually had something to say.


----------



## NotYourBody

beagle9 said:


> You libs/leftist are like arrogant petulant children who try to fool the grown ups, but it ain't working no matter how hard you try.
> 
> You try to use the stats prior to any law changing as if those stats would remain the same in violation of the law. If the law changes, then compliance will be next. Your 600,000 will instantly be reduced to a few thousand who would attempt to escape the law. Sadly that is what happens, but the help programs will be still intact or increased, but the monsters looking to extract living beings from their safe home inside their mothers womb will be a thing of the past. They will be unemployed or cross training into something else. Hopefully they will be unemployed/unemployable after the henious things that they have done.



Honey you are not getting it.There will be no need for abortion laws once the fetus is able to be transferred to the incubator. No more pro-choice, pro-life. No more fighting. Everyone wins.

Are you willing to pay? To protect life? To save the babies? 

Or do you really just want control?

It's okay to admit it. We all know the truth.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> Which is fine if you actually had something to say.


You are not required to read or respond to my posts. That's on you bud.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you look at something that might appear to be dead to you, so you go ahead and thrust in the spike as so to ensure it's death although it may have been alive to begin with ??? You take chances like that in life do you ??? It's great you are not looked to in order to give life a chance, because it's obvious which way you would go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question has been asked and asked again, and we get no answer. Folks, like it or not, the argument goes to pro-choice for the absence of intelligent debate with not answering the scientific and religious questions. The posters on the Right are not God, so they can't answer it that way, nor were they able to answer the questions scientifically with conclusive evidence. You lose. Game over.
Click to expand...


Hey troll, we replied to your question 10,000 times, you just don't like the answer.   It's OK if you disagree with the answer, but your blatant lying that we "won't answer" only makes you look like a lying sack of caca, or a juvenile troll.


----------



## Death Angel

NotYourBody said:


> Are you willing to pay? To protect life? To save the babies?


Pay WHAT. Its YOUR child. You raise her and the father will help you. If you refuse to take care of your child we WILL "control" your choices with jail.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you willing to pay? To protect life? To save the babies?
> 
> 
> 
> Pay WHAT. Its YOUR child. You raise her and the father will help you. If you refuse to take care of your child we WILL "control" your choices with jail.
Click to expand...

No. You just think you will. Bless your precious delusional heart.

You better get those New! and Improved! pregnancy x-ray vision glasses (brought to you by Ronco) so you'll know which women you need to mind.

Hurry!


----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backing away from the cliff is something we in this country have been doing for centuries. Do liberals/leftist think that they have sealed this nations fate ??? The arrogance of the left is astonishing these days, but they are facing a learning curve right now, so it's understandable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you achieve compliance? That's what I keep asking. What is your plan to take control of the fetus inside my uterus.
> 
> Spell it out. Don't be afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to take control of you or your fetus, but to only issue you a notice of the law, and if you don't comply, and you have your baby killed, then you will suffer the penalty of that law or laws when passed.
> 
> Could be a huge fine with some prison time in order to make an example of those wishing to do such a thing beyond those who had chosen to violate the law.
Click to expand...


Beagle, you just don't focus do you? THERE WILL BE NO PENALTY FOR THE WOMAN IF ROE IS REVERSED. There never has been. Repeat this 100 times on a chalkboard, until you can remember it.


----------



## sealybobo

SAYIT said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Would you say that about your own life?
> 
> 
> 
> So we need a cut off. Do I think a healthy fetus should be aborted at 7 months? No. But 3? Sure. Why? Because life isn’t that precious. I’m over 3 months old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not judging by your posts.
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why don our laws confirm what you a e saying? Killing someone’s pet will give you jail time. Abortion is completely legal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because our laws are often political in nature, not ethical or justified but if you can't see the INHUMANITY in slaughtering babes-in-the-womb or our adult responsibility to defend them, you just can't see it.
Click to expand...

Slaughtering babies? Life isn’t that precious. Anyone who thinks it is doesn’t get an abortion. Anyone who agrees with me gets one. Mind your own business.

No I don’t see it. That’s why I’m pro choice


----------



## sealybobo

Vandalshandle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backing away from the cliff is something we in this country have been doing for centuries. Do liberals/leftist think that they have sealed this nations fate ??? The arrogance of the left is astonishing these days, but they are facing a learning curve right now, so it's understandable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will you achieve compliance? That's what I keep asking. What is your plan to take control of the fetus inside my uterus.
> 
> Spell it out. Don't be afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to take control of you or your fetus, but to only issue you a notice of the law, and if you don't comply, and you have your baby killed, then you will suffer the penalty of that law or laws when passed.
> 
> Could be a huge fine with some prison time in order to make an example of those wishing to do such a thing beyond those who had chosen to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beagle, you just don't focus do you? THERE WILL BE NO PENALTY FOR THE WOMAN IF ROE IS REVERSED. There never has been. Repeat this 100 times on a chalkboard, until you can remember it.
Click to expand...

Why believe you guys? Your party won’t even tell women before 2020 that your goal is to overturn roe. 

Put it on the ballot


----------



## sealybobo

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cannot see that life is most precious of all, really has no business calling themselves human. Of course by their attitudes and behaviors, it is clear that many of these non-humans (also known as democrats) value image, social standing, and material goods more than they ever could value human life even if their moral compass were ever repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> And we are NOT going away. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NotYourBody: IT'S MY BODY IT'S MY BODY AND IF WANT TO KILL ALL MY BABIES I WILL!! YOU CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT!!!
> 
> **Every decent man with testosterone levels high enough to actually impregnate a woman slinks away**
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren’t most Baka fans republican conservatives? Why a e they getting abortions? Choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know...perhaps it is the ones in state  who aren't  getting abortions...most black aren't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think most anti abortion women have had abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't  think...because the fucked up women you know want it!...Easy cheap contraceptives AND make the taxpayer pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
Click to expand...

What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform.

Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women.

Republicans war on women and freedom


----------



## sealybobo

SweetSue92 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is life isn’t that precious.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why don our laws confirm what you a e saying? Killing someone’s pet will give you jail time. Abortion is completely legal.
> 
> And you have the choice not to get one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking why do people make laws that are immoral, dumb or wrong?
> 
> I don't know. But as Exhibit A I give you Nazi Germany, and afterward everyone said they were "Just following the law". Saying "it's not illegal" is a shoddy, really crappy argument
Click to expand...

If you had a dog and you got it an abortion would you consider that the same thing as what michael Vick was doing to living dogs?

No, you realize the difference. 

Why wouldn’t you put the vet in jail for cruelty to animals? Because life isn’t that precious. 

If you think human fetuses are more precious is that your religious belief?


----------



## buttercup

SassyIrishLass said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the stats we're in slavery before the laws were created against it ? Think about anything that laws have been created in order to lower the stats on or even stop a bad thing from affecting negatively civil society. If anyone was to buy into your bullcrap post or ideology, nothing would have ever changed for the better in this nation over time.  Now it's time to deal with the deplorabalism of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normally laws are effective because there is evidence of a crime that can be pursued. In this case, there is no missing person to look for, no body to be found.
> 
> You don't even know there WAS a pregnancy.
> 
> Logical paths.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like someone who would have some kind of weird thought process that includes killing a human being. Are you some kind of evil person or what ?? I mean listen to yourself carry on here in the way that you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect that one has never been pg nor ever will be....two reasons I think it's male given it's vocabulary and two on the slim chance it's female no guy would touch it. It can't shut up
Click to expand...


Very good point.  Any sane guy wouldn't want to be anywhere near a "woman" who is literally gleeful about killing her own children.       But maybe some members of the church of satan would oblige? Abortion seems to be one of their "sacraments."


----------



## Death Angel

sealybobo said:


> If you had a dog and you got it an abortion would you consider that the same thing as what michael Vick was doing to living dogs?
> 
> No, you realize the difference


Yes. That would be pretty evil. Did you torture animals as a kid? Do you today?

Why do tards have so little respect for life


----------



## buttercup

sealybobo said:


> Life isn’t that precious.


That literally sickens me.  That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess.
> 
> You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.
> 
> You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.
> 
> You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.
> 
> If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!
> 
> You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!!
> 
> Bless your precious hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You libs/leftist are like arrogant petulant children who try to fool the grown ups, but it ain't working no matter how hard you try.
> 
> You try to use the stats prior to any law changing as if those stats would remain the same in violation of the law. If the law changes, then compliance will be next. Your 600,000 will instantly be reduced to a few thousand who would attempt to escape the law. Sadly that is what happens, but the help programs will be still intact or increased, but the monsters looking to extract living beings from their safe home inside their mothers womb will be a thing of the past. They will be unemployed or cross training into something else. Hopefully they will be unemployed/unemployable after the henious things that they have done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lose. You failed to engage the questions with proof or answers. You all are bull shitters with nothing.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the answers is your crews game. You loose as everyone isn't as dumb as you wish them to be.


----------



## SAYIT

sealybobo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Would you say that about your own life?
> 
> 
> 
> So we need a cut off. Do I think a healthy fetus should be aborted at 7 months? No. But 3? Sure. Why? Because life isn’t that precious. I’m over 3 months old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not judging by your posts.
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious. Normal humans know this on an instinctual level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why don our laws confirm what you a e saying? Killing someone’s pet will give you jail time. Abortion is completely legal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because our laws are often political in nature, not ethical or justified but if you can't see the INHUMANITY in slaughtering babes-in-the-womb or our adult responsibility to defend them, you just can't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaughtering babies? Life isn’t that precious. Anyone who thinks it is doesn’t get an abortion. Anyone who agrees with me gets one. Mind your own business.
> 
> No I don’t see it. That’s why I’m pro choice
Click to expand...

You see it like a self-absorbed 9 yr old. Full grown adults see slaughtering and flushing babies as neither normal nor healthy for society or the babies. Clearly I'm not a little surprised one such as you cannot understand but yeah ... defending them is my biz so fuck you, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had a dog and you got it an abortion would you consider that the same thing as what michael Vick was doing to living dogs? No, you realize the difference
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That would be pretty evil. Did you torture animals as a kid? Do you today? Why do tards have so little respect for life
Click to expand...

Because it is inconvenient and contrary to that which they are told to think and like SealyBooBoo, they are leftarded.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> There is a clear and obvious reason why the impulse to perpetuate the species (directly, or as a surrogate) is the strongest impulse in the human condition. Any normally functioning (morally and intellectually) human recognizes this and feels it in the deepest recesses of their heart and soul. Some 'people' are not normally functioning, and/or are so shallow as to have no recesses if they have a heart and soul at all.


.


----------



## SAYIT

sealybobo said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
Click to expand...

Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."


----------



## Unkotare

NotYourBody said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cannot see that life is most precious of all, really has no business calling themselves human. Of course by their attitudes and behaviors, it is clear that many of these non-humans (also known as democrats) value image, social standing, and material goods more than they ever could value human life even if their moral compass were ever repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> And we are NOT going away. .....
Click to expand...



Oh yes you are. It's the consequence of your own fucked up ideology.


----------



## Dana7360

SassyIrishLass said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shut up with your nonsense. You know it's life so stop the fucking charade. Loon
Click to expand...




Oh I guess pointing out the constitution to you is a charade. 

It's not. It's fact and reality. Which is why you have become vulgar. Do you kiss people you love with that filthy mouth of yours?

I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business. 

I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.

Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.

Tough for you.


----------



## SAYIT

Dana7360 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shut up with your nonsense. You know it's life so stop the fucking charade. Loon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I guess pointing out the constitution to you is a charade.
> 
> It's not. It's fact and reality. Which is why you have become vulgar. Do you kiss people you love with that filthy mouth of yours?
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
Click to expand...

Proving the OP once again ... there is not one good argument for slaughtering babies. Thank you.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. It's hard when you are unable to force your will on someone else.
Click to expand...

So many Gods on the Right. Lol! They're a mess.


----------



## BWK

SAYIT said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shut up with your nonsense. You know it's life so stop the fucking charade. Loon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I guess pointing out the constitution to you is a charade.
> 
> It's not. It's fact and reality. Which is why you have become vulgar. Do you kiss people you love with that filthy mouth of yours?
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving the OP once again ... there is not one good argument for slaughtering babies. Thank you.
Click to expand...

When did the baby in the womb begin life? Answer, you don't know, and neither does anyone else. Including doctors, scientists, and Right-wing fanatics.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> Ok, here's my review of this thread.
> 
> *BWK *- Failed 5th grade biology, completely dismissed a LONG list of excerpts/quotes from biology textbooks, scientists and doctors covering decades stating that human life begins at conception. Then posts an _opinion_ piece from an msm site as proof and claims victory.   Lots of projecting and living in upside-down land.
> 
> *C_CLAYTON_JONES* - Will ONLY talk about the law, even after it was pointed out that laws are not absolute truths never to be questioned, remember slavery was legal?
> 
> *Vandalshandle* - Snarky one-liners, no actual debating (as far as I saw) and refuses to look at anything that contradicts his view.
> 
> *NotYourBody  - "*You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!!  You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!! You can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, la la la la la !!!!!"  (with fingers in ears and eyes closed)
> 
> Zero debating, zero defending her position, zero engaging in an actual discussion, will not read anything more than 3 sentences, basically just trolling like a rebellious child.
> 
> *dblack  - *Little to no debating the actual topic, only emotional, paranoid comments about future enforcement, and other red herrings. He _was_ the only one who answered the question on Scott Peterson, so I do give him credit for that, even though he was wrong.
> 
> Did I forget anyone?


You still can't deal with reality can you.? Even the Catholic Church, Jews, and Muslims have not claimed they know when life begins, because they aren't so idiotic as to make such an absurd claim. When Does Life Begin? Outside the Christian Right, the Answer Is “Over Time.”

And as you post this, *WK - Failed 5th grade biology, completely dismissed a LONG list of excerpts/quotes from biology textbooks, scientists and doctors covering decades stating that human life begins at conception. Then posts an opinion piece from an msm site as proof and claims victory. Lots of projecting and living in upside-down land, t*here are just as many textbooks, doctors, and scientists who tell us exactly the opposite. Why, because no one really knows when life begins. They will never know unless God tells us.  You are trying to push something that is impossible for man to answer. Stop making a fool of yourself.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.
> 
> Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??
> 
> Hard to tell anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Princeton good enough for ya? Now shut up loudmouth
> 
> Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He ignored the other 10,000 quotes from medical textbooks and scientists, so I'm sure he'll ignore that too.  In other words, we could post 100,000 statements from scientists, and he would STILL claim "Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about when is the beginning of life"?"     lolololol  Ohhh, my word.
> 
> He's being flat out dishonest, at this point.
Click to expand...

You could post a million, and there will be a million others telling us something different. Get your head out of the sand.


----------



## buttercup

Dana7360 said:


> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.



Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, etc. 







Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:





> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.


----------



## BWK

SAYIT said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
Click to expand...




buttercup said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you look at something that might appear to be dead to you, so you go ahead and thrust in the spike as so to ensure it's death although it may have been alive to begin with ??? You take chances like that in life do you ??? It's great you are not looked to in order to give life a chance, because it's obvious which way you would go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question has been asked and asked again, and we get no answer. Folks, like it or not, the argument goes to pro-choice for the absence of intelligent debate with not answering the scientific and religious questions. The posters on the Right are not God, so they can't answer it that way, nor were they able to answer the questions scientifically with conclusive evidence. You lose. Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its been answered numerous times you befuddled dumb fuck
Click to expand...

It's no where to be found. You're a liar. If it were true, you would have posted it.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
Click to expand...


Only in your ignorant, stubborn little mind.  Science already established LONG ago when human life begins. You just don't want to hear it, because it goes against your strange obsession with promoting abortion.


----------



## SAYIT

BWK said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shut up with your nonsense. You know it's life so stop the fucking charade. Loon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I guess pointing out the constitution to you is a charade.
> 
> It's not. It's fact and reality. Which is why you have become vulgar. Do you kiss people you love with that filthy mouth of yours?
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving the OP once again ... there is not one good argument for slaughtering babies. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the baby in the womb begin life? Answer, you don't know, and neither does anyone else. Including doctors, scientists, and Right-wing fanatics.
Click to expand...

So your story remains babies aren't alive so it;s OK to slaughter them, eh? 

Brain-deaf leftard. Very sad.


----------



## satrebil

Premie born at 24 weeks. Pro-aborts say this CHILD should be perfectly legal to kill. Sadistic fucks.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

satrebil said:


> Premie born at 24 weeks. Pro-aborts say this CHILD should be perfectly legal to kill. Sadistic fucks.
> 
> View attachment 262793




is that one of them famous blob of cells /parasites that make the leftards want to vacuum away in pieces ?


----------



## buttercup

Speaking of premies, does anyone remember this video, that went viral back in 2013?   

This beautiful little boy was born at 25 weeks.  Let it sink in that the some here believe that babies this age, *or even farther along than him,* are disposable, worthless non-humans who can be dismembered and killed, simply because of where they are located.

This video is a must-see.


----------



## SweetSue92

buttercup said:


> Ok, here's my review of this thread.
> 
> *BWK *- Failed 5th grade biology, completely dismissed a LONG list of excerpts/quotes from biology textbooks, scientists and doctors covering decades stating that human life begins at conception. Then posts an _opinion_ piece from an msm site as proof and claims victory.   Lots of projecting and living in upside-down land.
> 
> *C_CLAYTON_JONES* - Will ONLY talk about the law, even after it was pointed out that laws are not absolute truths never to be questioned, remember slavery was legal?
> 
> *Vandalshandle* - Snarky one-liners, no actual debating (as far as I saw) and refuses to look at anything that contradicts his view.
> 
> *NotYourBody  - "*You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!!  You can't stop me, you can't stop me  la la la la la!!! You can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice my body my choice you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, you can't stop me you can't stop me, la la la la la !!!!!"  (with fingers in ears and eyes closed)
> 
> Zero debating, zero defending her position, zero engaging in an actual discussion, will not read anything more than 3 sentences, basically just trolling like a rebellious child.
> 
> *dblack  - *Little to no debating the actual topic, only emotional, paranoid comments about future enforcement, and other red herrings. He _was_ the only one who answered the question on Scott Peterson, so I do give him credit for that, even though he was wrong.
> 
> Did I forget anyone?



I think that's an excellent recap and it's why abortion defenders are losing the debate. Thanks!


----------



## SweetSue92

Dana7360 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> 
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
Click to expand...


No it's not, actually. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states lawmakers cannot vote on laws based on their religious convictions so long as they do not break the tenets of the Constitution. There IS no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution and so, as you well know, lawmakers are ABSOLUTELY allowed to oppose ANYTHING or endorse ANYTHING based on religious belief. The people ELECT them. If the people don't like it, kick them out of office and they won't make laws. That's how it works.


----------



## SweetSue92

SassyIrishLass said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.
> 
> That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....
> 
> Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.
> 
> Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.
> 
> No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! *Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.
> *
> You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Princeton good enough for ya? Now shut up loudmouth
> 
> Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He ignored the other 10,000 quotes from medical textbooks and scientists, so I'm sure he'll ignore that too.  In other words, we could post 100,000 statements from scientists, and he would STILL claim "Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about when is the beginning of life"?"     lolololol  Ohhh, my word.
> 
> He's being flat out dishonest, at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards
Click to expand...


I'm no longer responding to any of those posters in this thread. Buttercup gave us an excellent recap; they have nothing more to say. For my part I'm wiping the dust from my sandals and  moving on.


----------



## SweetSue92

satrebil said:


> 20+ pages since last night and all I've seen is the same leftist posters refusing to acknowledge science and precedent while regurgitating their debunked talking points as NotYourBody cheer-leads with her juvenile "LA LA LA LA I'LL DO AS I PLEASE LA LA LA LA NO NO NO NO LA LA LA LA TTTHTHHHHBBBBPPPPPPTTTTT!!!!" antics.
> 
> It's like watching a fucking kindergarten classroom.



But to be fair, only the worst of the Kinders....the bullies and the whiners. 

Most kinders are much better than this. Much.


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_
> 
> So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
> 
> _Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree if you condone any abortion you're just as gulity as the murderer doing it?
> 
> I'm interested, what's your stance on abortion because if you agree with any part of it you just called yourself a murderer.
> 
> This may very well be an epic gotcha moment...unless of course you oppose all abortions
Click to expand...


i suppose the white 'christian' male alabama legislature that voted for such a draconian 'law' who  said that frozen IVF  'babies'    *aren't really ' babies ' * ,    & therefore aren't as worthy  
( even though they are EXACTLY the same in every manner at that gestational stage) because as he put it:  _they aren't  'inside a woman'  _   is a murderer too.....   right?


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_
> 
> So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
> 
> _Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree if you condone any abortion you're just as gulity as the murderer doing it?
> 
> I'm interested, what's your stance on abortion because if you agree with any part of it you just called yourself a murderer.
> 
> This may very well be an epic gotcha moment...unless of course you oppose all abortions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I point out in the link at the end of the second line of my sig, I'm pro choice.  I'd also be open to bans on late term abortion, and I don't like the way most pro choicers approach this topic.
> 
> So, again, for clarity, I'm pro choice.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then according to your post you're a murderer. You called Trump one. Fair is fair but thanks for the honesty
> 
> Be careful what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, I'm a murderer.  So is Trump.
> 
> Call the cops.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God will sort it out. Bank that one
Click to expand...


well then, what about those that don't believe in the same 'god' as you....  or not at all.  this is a nation built on laws & there is no litmus test, therefore your 'special' brand of religion doesn't trump any other.  pun intended.  AND if 'god' will sort it out -  why legislate it based on your doctrine then?


----------



## playtime

beagle9 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> the worst thing so called 'pro lifers' say - i say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad....  is when they use the term 'baby'  when referring to a zygote or embryo or a few 'weeks' old gestational fetus is the same as a post born person with a history.
> 
> when a clump of cells & tissue has more value than babies whose cord is cut...& they & their mamas are on their own as far as food, medical care, housing & education or GOD forbid, they are brown & are in cages ready to be sent back to their 3rd word 'shit holes' ,  something is seriously & defectively wrong with their brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A zygote, embryo and fetus are just terms to use for human development, like newborn, toddler, preschooler, pre-teen, teenager. They don't confer designation of worth on a person.
> 
> 2. The 70s called, they want their busted "clump of cells" talking point back.
> 
> 3. No one is saying the baby has MORE value than the mother. But, you do not KILL someone because another finds the life inconvenient or unwanted. This goes without saying in all other facets of life.
> 
> 4. You deflect to ranting because you have no other case to make. See above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) rant? LOL!!!!!!!!!!  silly you.  you're the one ranting or you wouldn't have started this thread.
> 
> B) a clump of cells is still a clump of cells no matter what you try to change it into.  you wanna legislate so that *personhood* starts at conception.
> 
> C) i see you didn't address the issue of what to do with all those forced to term pregnancies once the cord is cut.
> 
> D) now tell me how you want your taxes raised to accommodate all that new precious life & their welfare mamas.
> 
> E) did your god decipher the difference  in 'personhood' in the OT?   start with exodus & then numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your stance is that the world in which the left has created is now unstoppable, and it's highly unaffordable, so it best to stop the added pressures to that world while they are still in the womb ?
> 
> Otherwise to keep balance or to  try and keep balance in leftist world, these things must continue to take place because there is no way out of leftist world now right ?? Trump caused a 7.9 quake to strike in leftist world, and the left went slam crazy afterwards.
Click to expand...


speak english please.


----------



## playtime

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> the worst thing so called 'pro lifers' say - i say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad....  is when they use the term 'baby'  when referring to a zygote or embryo or a few 'weeks' old gestational fetus is the same as a post born person with a history.
> 
> when a clump of cells & tissue has more value than babies whose cord is cut...& they & their mamas are on their own as far as food, medical care, housing & education or GOD forbid, they are brown & are in cages ready to be sent back to their 3rd word 'shit holes' ,  something is seriously & defectively wrong with their brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A zygote, embryo and fetus are just terms to use for human development, like newborn, toddler, preschooler, pre-teen, teenager. They don't confer designation of worth on a person.
> 
> 2. The 70s called, they want their busted "clump of cells" talking point back.
> 
> 3. No one is saying the baby has MORE value than the mother. But, you do not KILL someone because another finds the life inconvenient or unwanted. This goes without saying in all other facets of life.
> 
> 4. You deflect to ranting because you have no other case to make. See above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the right to privacy.
> 
> That some might subjectively believe that the reason or reasons why a woman elects to terminate her pregnancy are ‘wrong’ or ‘invalid’ is legally irrelevant, in no manner ‘justification’ to deny a woman that choice guaranteed to her by the Constitution.
Click to expand...


that big bad intrusive gov'ment, so called 'conservatives'  want to stay out of americans' lives only apply to their religion, the 2nd amendment, & private business practices.  but when in comes to the bedroom or the uterus -  then that's different.


----------



## sealybobo

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had a dog and you got it an abortion would you consider that the same thing as what michael Vick was doing to living dogs?
> 
> No, you realize the difference
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That would be pretty evil. Did you torture animals as a kid? Do you today?
> 
> Why do tards have so little respect for life
Click to expand...

Do you really believe a dog abortion is the same as a living dog dying in a dog fight?

Then you’re a tard.

But you get one vote and so does everyone else. I’ll go with what the majority of women think


----------



## sealybobo

buttercup said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> That literally sickens me.  That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.

Your way is leading us to atrocities.

Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society


----------



## sealybobo

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your ignorant, stubborn little mind.  Science already established LONG ago when human life begins. You just don't want to hear it, because it goes against your strange obsession with promoting abortion.
Click to expand...

When does the life of a chicken begin? Yet you know the difference between cutting a chickens head off and scrambling an egg


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> 
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, actually. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states lawmakers cannot vote on laws based on their religious convictions so long as they do not break the tenets of the Constitution. There IS no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution and so, as you well know, lawmakers are ABSOLUTELY allowed to oppose ANYTHING or endorse ANYTHING based on religious belief. The people ELECT them. If the people don't like it, kick them out of office and they won't make laws. That's how it works.
Click to expand...

If you vote on it, you are attempting to  break that wall between church and state;  

*Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[1]*

You want to practice anti-abortion? Knock yourself out. But the Constitution clearly states there will be "no law respecting an establishment of religion." And since there are no known scientific conclusions, just theories about when life begins, the radical Right is pushing their religious belief into law by using make believe conclusions not established as fact.

The Constitution never signed us up to exercise your religious beliefs through law. That would be akin to religious bondage.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

sealybobo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> That literally sickens me.  That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.
> 
> Your way is leading us to atrocities.
> 
> Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society
Click to expand...


Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.

You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS


----------



## Geaux4it

Until POTUS unscrewed things, I thought SCOTUS ruled during ACA that a woman *DOES NOT* have control over her body

-Geaux


----------



## BWK

sealybobo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your ignorant, stubborn little mind.  Science already established LONG ago when human life begins. You just don't want to hear it, because it goes against your strange obsession with promoting abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When does the life of a chicken begin? Yet you know the difference between cutting a chickens head off and scrambling an egg
Click to expand...

They can't answer. I already asked it before. Was the egg a chicken before it was scrambled? Lol! Did it scream kaka doodle do inside the egg? You know, like a fetus starts talking baby talk immediately after conception.


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> That literally sickens me.  That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.
> 
> Your way is leading us to atrocities.
> 
> Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.
> 
> You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS
Click to expand...

When did the life start again? 2073 posts and that question was never answered.


----------



## BWK

satrebil said:


> 20+ pages since last night and all I've seen is the same leftist posters refusing to acknowledge science and precedent while regurgitating their debunked talking points as NotYourBody cheer-leads with her juvenile "LA LA LA LA I'LL DO AS I PLEASE LA LA LA LA NO NO NO NO LA LA LA LA TTTHTHHHHBBBBPPPPPPTTTTT!!!!" antics.
> 
> It's like watching a fucking kindergarten classroom.


The science has already been addressed. There are only theories in science that address when life begins, as bad as you want to believe otherwise.

Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins

Biology and evolution of life science


----------



## sealybobo

BWK said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> 
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, actually. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states lawmakers cannot vote on laws based on their religious convictions so long as they do not break the tenets of the Constitution. There IS no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution and so, as you well know, lawmakers are ABSOLUTELY allowed to oppose ANYTHING or endorse ANYTHING based on religious belief. The people ELECT them. If the people don't like it, kick them out of office and they won't make laws. That's how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you vote on it, you are attempting to  break that wall between church and state;
> 
> *Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[1]*
> 
> You want to practice anti-abortion? Knock yourself out. But the Constitution clearly states there will be "no law respecting an establishment of religion." And since there are no known scientific conclusions, just theories about when life begins, the radical Right is pushing their religious belief into law by using make believe conclusions not established as fact.
> 
> The Constitution never signed us up to exercise your religious beliefs through law. That would be akin to religious bondage.
Click to expand...

I’ve been trying to get them to admit it. This whole life is precious thing is their religion. Keep your religion out of my uterus. 

Human life is not that precious you can’t abort it at 12 weeks. Republicans want to make it zero weeks so don’t give in to this 8 week cut off. Most women don’t even know they have a seed in them until after 8 weeks.


----------



## sealybobo

BWK said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> That literally sickens me.  That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.
> 
> Your way is leading us to atrocities.
> 
> Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.
> 
> You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the life start again? 2073 posts and that question was never answered.
Click to expand...

As soon as that sperm penetrates the egg a woman is a murderer if she takes the morning after pill. Murder.


----------



## NotYourBody

SweetSue92 said:


> But to be fair, only the worst of the Kinders....the bullies and the whiners.
> 
> Most kinders are much better than this. Much.


If only you could control the way we all think......


----------



## NotYourBody

Geaux4it said:


> Until POTUS unscrewed things, I thought SCOTUS ruled during ACA that a woman *DOES NOT* have control over her body
> 
> -Geaux


Is that right? Because I never lost control over my body even once after ACA happened.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> But you get one vote and so does everyone else. I’ll go with what the majority of women think



Screw that. Majority rule doesn't override individual rights.


----------



## SAYIT

NotYourBody said:


> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!


You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.

So far … no takers … and we all know why.


----------



## SAYIT

SassyIrishLass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> That literally sickens me.  That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.
> 
> Your way is leading us to atrocities.
> 
> Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.
> 
> You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS
Click to expand...

You will note that poor BooBoo often speaks from both sides of his mouth, sometimes in the same sentence. Here he claims that "_Life isn’t that precious_" followed quickly by "_I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t._"

I have found it is useless to point it out to him … he just doesn't get it. I suspect it's either a severe learning disability, a reality disconnect, or multiple personalities. Very sad.

"_Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society_." - SillyBooBoo


----------



## NotYourBody

SAYIT said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
Click to expand...

I don't have to respond to your arguments because you haven't demonstrated you have the ability to enforce them. It's a waste of time until you are willing to detail your plans.


----------



## BWK

NotYourBody said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to be fair, only the worst of the Kinders....the bullies and the whiners.
> 
> Most kinders are much better than this. Much.
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could control the way we all think......
Click to expand...

Which, that's what they want to do. That's step one, to gain control.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to be fair, only the worst of the Kinders....the bullies and the whiners.
> 
> Most kinders are much better than this. Much.
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could control the way we all think......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, that's what they want to do. That's step one, to gain control.
Click to expand...


Oh the irony


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20+ pages since last night and all I've seen is the same leftist posters refusing to acknowledge science and precedent while regurgitating their debunked talking points as NotYourBody cheer-leads with her juvenile "LA LA LA LA I'LL DO AS I PLEASE LA LA LA LA NO NO NO NO LA LA LA LA TTTHTHHHHBBBBPPPPPPTTTTT!!!!" antics.
> 
> It's like watching a fucking kindergarten classroom.
> 
> 
> 
> The science has already been addressed. There are only theories in science that address when life begins, as bad as you want to believe otherwise.
> 
> Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins
> 
> Biology and evolution of life science
Click to expand...


If it’s true we don’t know when life begins then I don’t know how you think you have the upper hand here: your assumptions are no better than anyone else’s and you may very well be ending a life.

Your rationale is like shooting through a door where someone may or may not be on the other side. Even though someone might be on the other side but you can’t prove there is, fire away.


----------



## BWK

Ghost of a Rider said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20+ pages since last night and all I've seen is the same leftist posters refusing to acknowledge science and precedent while regurgitating their debunked talking points as NotYourBody cheer-leads with her juvenile "LA LA LA LA I'LL DO AS I PLEASE LA LA LA LA NO NO NO NO LA LA LA LA TTTHTHHHHBBBBPPPPPPTTTTT!!!!" antics.
> 
> It's like watching a fucking kindergarten classroom.
> 
> 
> 
> The science has already been addressed. There are only theories in science that address when life begins, as bad as you want to believe otherwise.
> 
> Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins
> 
> Biology and evolution of life science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it’s true we don’t know when life begins then I don’t know how you think you have the upper hand here: your assumptions are no better than anyone else’s and you may very well be ending a life.
> 
> Your rationale is like shooting through a door where someone may or may not be on the other side. Even though someone might be on the other side but you can’t prove there is, fire away.
Click to expand...

I don't have the upper hand. That's the whole point. Neither does anyone else. Which is the point. If you want to play God, and not have an abortion,  fine, but don't subject me to your game, whatever that game is. The sheer fact that man does not know when life begins, does not give others the right to push their moral judgments around, because of their religious reasons. It ends up a violation of the Constitution. Which is why their was a Roe vs. Wade in the first place. And I fail to see how and why that is so hard for the Right to understand? My only logical conclusion, is that no matter what they're religious reasons are, it  trumps the reasons of others, and they'll use any reason necessary, absent any religious or scientific evidence. But ha, that's their problem. Stop making it mine.


----------



## BWK

SassyIrishLass said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to be fair, only the worst of the Kinders....the bullies and the whiners.
> 
> Most kinders are much better than this. Much.
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could control the way we all think......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, that's what they want to do. That's step one, to gain control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the irony
Click to expand...

Oh the absence of any intelligent debate or evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you get one vote and so does everyone else. I’ll go with what the majority of women think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw that. Majority rule doesn't override individual rights.
Click to expand...

I don't know which side you are on but you know what I mean.  If our society decides abortion is murder, then it's murder.  

This should emphasize how important voting is.  If you like pro choice you better get out and vote.  Republicans will show up.

And it's not majority rules.  The GOP have stacked the Supreme Court with people who do not agree with the majority of Americans on things like abortion.  Maybe you all should have thought about that when you didn't vote for Hillary.  Yall deserve what the GOP is handing out.  

I myself don't give a fuck.  I'm not having any abortions.  I don't want any of my family members to get abortions.  Unless they want to of course and then I think they should have the right to abort.  But that's for women ages 18-49 to decide.  They are the ones who either want or don't want the option.  Vote in 2020 and never vote GOP again if you are pro choice.  

We warned people.  For decades Republicans have denied they want to overturn roe but now we see the truth.

Put it on the 2020 ballot.  Why not cowards?  Don't you want to know what people want?  Or do you want Republican white rich men to decide?  All because they want to please the religious right who got them elected.

Well?


----------



## sealybobo

SweetSue92 said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20+ pages since last night and all I've seen is the same leftist posters refusing to acknowledge science and precedent while regurgitating their debunked talking points as NotYourBody cheer-leads with her juvenile "LA LA LA LA I'LL DO AS I PLEASE LA LA LA LA NO NO NO NO LA LA LA LA TTTHTHHHHBBBBPPPPPPTTTTT!!!!" antics.
> 
> It's like watching a fucking kindergarten classroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to be fair, only the worst of the Kinders....the bullies and the whiners.
> 
> Most kinders are much better than this. Much.
Click to expand...

Hey, if people in MO are ok with it so am I.

*Missouri Set To Become First State Since Roe v. Wade With No Abortion Clinic*
As states sign strict anti-abortion measures into law, women in more and more states could lose access to reproductive rights.

Missouri’s last remaining abortion clinic is set to close in just 72 hours, just days after the governor signed a strict anti-abortion measure into law. 

Planned Parenthood said Missouri’s health department is refusing to renew its license to operate in the state, which would force the closure of the last remaining clinic in St. Louis at the end of the week. 

It is one of six states with just one remaining clinic. 

without a health center that provides safe, legal abortion care. More than a million women of reproductive age in Missouri will no longer have access to a health center in the state they live in that provides abortion care.”


----------



## sealybobo

SassyIrishLass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> That literally sickens me.  That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.
> 
> Your way is leading us to atrocities.
> 
> Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.
> 
> You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS
Click to expand...

If you don't get it then I don't know what to tell you.  I see a baby and I would do just about anything to protect it.  But a seed in a womb is not precious to me.  That's why I'm pro choice.   You should mind ya own business.

This is your religion talking and I'm not religious.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SweetSue92 said:


> Now that I think of it, I really love Dragonlady's Stupid Abortion Talking Point of the day she thinks is so clever. It is this in all caps and bolded:
> 
> *IF IT'S NOT YOUR BABY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> *
> What's funny about that is everything else IS their business. Imagine if we took that leftist Stupid Talking Point and applied it elsewhere:
> 
> *IF IT'S NOT YOUR GUN PURCHASE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> 
> IF IT'S NOT YOUR GAY WEDDING CAKE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> 
> IF I WANT 50 PLASTIC STRAWS A DAY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
> *
> OH that's right--EVERYTHING is Leftists' business EXCEPT the dead babies. They don't care about the dead babies, but they sure as heck will micromanage all the straws you use.
> 
> Because dead squid in the ocean.



Don't forget "If I want to drink a Big Gulp soda in New York, it's none of your business."


----------



## PoliticalChic

*"Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities*
May 26th, 2017





NEW YORK, NY—Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un arrived at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices Friday on a diplomatic mission to learn from the abortion provider’s legendary methods of manipulating the media and covering up human rights atrocities, sources confirmed.

“In North Korea, we are usually the best at everything,” the ruthless dictator told reporters outside the organization’s offices. “But we have to admit that Planned Parenthood is far better than even the great Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when it comes to spinning, distorting, and pulling strings to cover up their daily trampling of human rights.”

“We’re here to learn from the experts,” he added.

The North Korean delegate reportedly met with leaders at Planned Parenthood, where a panel of public relations professionals demonstrated the organization’s advanced methods of squashing any clear evidence of its brutal, callous slaughtering of human babies the moment it arises.

“So you just get a judge to pull all the damning videos right away, and charge those trying to expose you with felonies? Amazing. We don’t even have that kind of power over the media back in Pyongyang.”

At publishing time, Planned Parenthood spokespeople had shown an impressed Kim Jong-un the organization’s direct hotline to various media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Snopes.com, whom they could phone in a moment’s notice to drum up a defense for any leaked videos of their barbaric practices."
Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities


----------



## Death Angel

PoliticalChic said:


> *"Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities*
> May 26th, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK, NY—Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un arrived at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices Friday on a diplomatic mission to learn from the abortion provider’s legendary methods of manipulating the media and covering up human rights atrocities, sources confirmed.
> 
> “In North Korea, we are usually the best at everything,” the ruthless dictator told reporters outside the organization’s offices. “But we have to admit that Planned Parenthood is far better than even the great Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when it comes to spinning, distorting, and pulling strings to cover up their daily trampling of human rights.”
> 
> “We’re here to learn from the experts,” he added.
> 
> The North Korean delegate reportedly met with leaders at Planned Parenthood, where a panel of public relations professionals demonstrated the organization’s advanced methods of squashing any clear evidence of its brutal, callous slaughtering of human babies the moment it arises.
> 
> “So you just get a judge to pull all the damning videos right away, and charge those trying to expose you with felonies? Amazing. We don’t even have that kind of power over the media back in Pyongyang.”
> 
> At publishing time, Planned Parenthood spokespeople had shown an impressed Kim Jong-un the organization’s direct hotline to various media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Snopes.com, whom they could phone in a moment’s notice to drum up a defense for any leaked videos of their barbaric practices."
> Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities


So close to the truth that it's believable!


----------



## playtime

SAYIT said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
Click to expand...


because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............

that's why.


----------



## Death Angel

playtime said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
Click to expand...

You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.



> First trimester *development* of embryo/*fetus*. A *developing baby* is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of *pregnancy*. ... During the third month of *pregnancy*, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017


----------



## playtime

PoliticalChic said:


> *"Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities*
> May 26th, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK, NY—Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un arrived at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices Friday on a diplomatic mission to learn from the abortion provider’s legendary methods of manipulating the media and covering up human rights atrocities, sources confirmed.
> 
> “In North Korea, we are usually the best at everything,” the ruthless dictator told reporters outside the organization’s offices. “But we have to admit that Planned Parenthood is far better than even the great Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when it comes to spinning, distorting, and pulling strings to cover up their daily trampling of human rights.”
> 
> “We’re here to learn from the experts,” he added.
> 
> The North Korean delegate reportedly met with leaders at Planned Parenthood, where a panel of public relations professionals demonstrated the organization’s advanced methods of squashing any clear evidence of its brutal, callous slaughtering of human babies the moment it arises.
> 
> “So you just get a judge to pull all the damning videos right away, and charge those trying to expose you with felonies? Amazing. We don’t even have that kind of power over the media back in Pyongyang.”
> 
> At publishing time, Planned Parenthood spokespeople had shown an impressed Kim Jong-un the organization’s direct hotline to various media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Snopes.com, whom they could phone in a moment’s notice to drum up a defense for any leaked videos of their barbaric practices."
> Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities





you mean the same NK piglet that trump loves long time?


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t go that far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're supporting government regulation of reproduction, you pretty much are.
Click to expand...


No one's talking about "government regulation of reproduction"; we're talking about what happens AFTER the reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED.  Which, if you're honest, you have to admit is already something which government regulates.


----------



## PoliticalChic

playtime said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities*
> May 26th, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK, NY—Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un arrived at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices Friday on a diplomatic mission to learn from the abortion provider’s legendary methods of manipulating the media and covering up human rights atrocities, sources confirmed.
> 
> “In North Korea, we are usually the best at everything,” the ruthless dictator told reporters outside the organization’s offices. “But we have to admit that Planned Parenthood is far better than even the great Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when it comes to spinning, distorting, and pulling strings to cover up their daily trampling of human rights.”
> 
> “We’re here to learn from the experts,” he added.
> 
> The North Korean delegate reportedly met with leaders at Planned Parenthood, where a panel of public relations professionals demonstrated the organization’s advanced methods of squashing any clear evidence of its brutal, callous slaughtering of human babies the moment it arises.
> 
> “So you just get a judge to pull all the damning videos right away, and charge those trying to expose you with felonies? Amazing. We don’t even have that kind of power over the media back in Pyongyang.”
> 
> At publishing time, Planned Parenthood spokespeople had shown an impressed Kim Jong-un the organization’s direct hotline to various media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Snopes.com, whom they could phone in a moment’s notice to drum up a defense for any leaked videos of their barbaric practices."
> Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the same NK piglet that trump loves long time?
Click to expand...




I seem to be so very good at reducing you Leftists to clearly false and insipid posts.



But.....I have had a great deal of practice.......


----------



## playtime

Death Angel said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  by whom pray tell?   the same 'christian' that started this silly rant?  who kept trying to move the religion goal posts?  the same one who never did answer the quandary that  the OT master of the universe dealt her?  the same one who has yet to answer whether she would be happy to have her taxes raised to pay for all them thar kiddies forced upon society & will need their health, nutritional, clothing, housing, & educational needs met?

<pfffft>


----------



## playtime

PoliticalChic said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities*
> May 26th, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK, NY—Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un arrived at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices Friday on a diplomatic mission to learn from the abortion provider’s legendary methods of manipulating the media and covering up human rights atrocities, sources confirmed.
> 
> “In North Korea, we are usually the best at everything,” the ruthless dictator told reporters outside the organization’s offices. “But we have to admit that Planned Parenthood is far better than even the great Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when it comes to spinning, distorting, and pulling strings to cover up their daily trampling of human rights.”
> 
> “We’re here to learn from the experts,” he added.
> 
> The North Korean delegate reportedly met with leaders at Planned Parenthood, where a panel of public relations professionals demonstrated the organization’s advanced methods of squashing any clear evidence of its brutal, callous slaughtering of human babies the moment it arises.
> 
> “So you just get a judge to pull all the damning videos right away, and charge those trying to expose you with felonies? Amazing. We don’t even have that kind of power over the media back in Pyongyang.”
> 
> At publishing time, Planned Parenthood spokespeople had shown an impressed Kim Jong-un the organization’s direct hotline to various media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Snopes.com, whom they could phone in a moment’s notice to drum up a defense for any leaked videos of their barbaric practices."
> Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the same NK piglet that trump loves long time?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to be so very good at reducing you Leftists to clearly false and insipid posts.
> 
> 
> 
> But.....I have had a great deal of practice.......
Click to expand...


but but but your dear leader says that they are ' in love '!!!!!!    remember or are you choosing ignorance?


----------



## playtime

Death Angel said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First trimester *development* of embryo/*fetus*. A *developing baby* is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of *pregnancy*. ... During the third month of *pregnancy*, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


nope.  it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.


----------



## PoliticalChic

playtime said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities*
> May 26th, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK, NY—Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un arrived at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices Friday on a diplomatic mission to learn from the abortion provider’s legendary methods of manipulating the media and covering up human rights atrocities, sources confirmed.
> 
> “In North Korea, we are usually the best at everything,” the ruthless dictator told reporters outside the organization’s offices. “But we have to admit that Planned Parenthood is far better than even the great Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when it comes to spinning, distorting, and pulling strings to cover up their daily trampling of human rights.”
> 
> “We’re here to learn from the experts,” he added.
> 
> The North Korean delegate reportedly met with leaders at Planned Parenthood, where a panel of public relations professionals demonstrated the organization’s advanced methods of squashing any clear evidence of its brutal, callous slaughtering of human babies the moment it arises.
> 
> “So you just get a judge to pull all the damning videos right away, and charge those trying to expose you with felonies? Amazing. We don’t even have that kind of power over the media back in Pyongyang.”
> 
> At publishing time, Planned Parenthood spokespeople had shown an impressed Kim Jong-un the organization’s direct hotline to various media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Snopes.com, whom they could phone in a moment’s notice to drum up a defense for any leaked videos of their barbaric practices."
> Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the same NK piglet that trump loves long time?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to be so very good at reducing you Leftists to clearly false and insipid posts.
> 
> 
> 
> But.....I have had a great deal of practice.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but but but your dear leader says that they are ' in love '!!!!!!    remember or are you choosing ignorance?
Click to expand...




That failed once already.....put a little effort into this, you dunce.



....come back when the conversation gets around to monster trucks and favorite Crayola.


----------



## Cecilie1200

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
Click to expand...


"Never mind all those facts you cite.  You only dislike abortion because you FEEL it's wrong, because that's how I form opinions!"

I'll make it real simple for you: I pity a female who can only find "independence" or "equality" as a woman through abortion.  And I fear anyone sociopathic enough to say, "Laws don't matter if I really want to do something."  Or dumb enough to think the way to keep from having babies you don't want is to militantly defend abortion, instead of just not fucking when you don't want to get pregnant.

If you really want control of your horribly female body, start with controlling what goes into it, instead of what comes out.


----------



## playtime

PoliticalChic said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities*
> May 26th, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK, NY—Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un arrived at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices Friday on a diplomatic mission to learn from the abortion provider’s legendary methods of manipulating the media and covering up human rights atrocities, sources confirmed.
> 
> “In North Korea, we are usually the best at everything,” the ruthless dictator told reporters outside the organization’s offices. “But we have to admit that Planned Parenthood is far better than even the great Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when it comes to spinning, distorting, and pulling strings to cover up their daily trampling of human rights.”
> 
> “We’re here to learn from the experts,” he added.
> 
> The North Korean delegate reportedly met with leaders at Planned Parenthood, where a panel of public relations professionals demonstrated the organization’s advanced methods of squashing any clear evidence of its brutal, callous slaughtering of human babies the moment it arises.
> 
> “So you just get a judge to pull all the damning videos right away, and charge those trying to expose you with felonies? Amazing. We don’t even have that kind of power over the media back in Pyongyang.”
> 
> At publishing time, Planned Parenthood spokespeople had shown an impressed Kim Jong-un the organization’s direct hotline to various media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Snopes.com, whom they could phone in a moment’s notice to drum up a defense for any leaked videos of their barbaric practices."
> Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the same NK piglet that trump loves long time?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to be so very good at reducing you Leftists to clearly false and insipid posts.
> 
> 
> 
> But.....I have had a great deal of practice.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but but but your dear leader says that they are ' in love '!!!!!!    remember or are you choosing ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That failed once already.....put a little effort into this, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 
> ....come back when the conversation gets around to monster trucks and favorite Crayola.
Click to expand...


oh i see -  you don't wanna acknowledge the love affair between the dear leaders.... 

but will justify a ridiculous meme

yep... you are being your typical circus act again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want "hands maids" and the power and control that come with it. Sound crazy? Yea, I agree. But never underestimate the power of a cult and it's evil teachings;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Margaret Atwood first published The Handmaid's Tale, I thought that such a fanciful scenario would never happen in the United States.  Now, her tale of an authoritarian theocracy is all to frighteningly real.  Given that fully 80% of the population supports abortion to some extent or another, and less than 20% supports an outright ban, this is truly the attempt of an angry bitter minority of misogynistic right wing radicals, to impose their religious and "moral" beliefs on an unwilling and unbelieving population.
> 
> *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE.  THAT'S THE TRUE MEANING OF "PRO-CHOICE".  When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, you can choose to carry the child to term.  Fully 75% of American women make that choice.  But the other 25%, chose "Not NOW", and their reasons for that choice are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> *
Click to expand...


When Margaret Atwood first published "The Handmaid's Tale", she found a way to bypass the need to have any writing talent or skill by appealing directly to the stupid people among us who want to flatter themselves that they're actually educated.

Have you semi-literate dimwits ever been told that THERE'S MORE THAN ONE BOOK IN THE WORLD?!  And some of them are actually well-written and thought-provoking beyond shameless pandering to your paranoia.

Don't even get me started on the "I'll just shout this sentence at the end of every post, and that will magically make it correct!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left loons are big on the "feelz"....and word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us. I don't give a crap about conservative's 'feelz' on when life begins. In fact, I don't give a crap about what their, or your, 'feelz' are regarding the contents of my uterus.
> 
> Word salad really aint my thang either so I'll make it real simple for you.
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. How you going to know I'm pregnant?
> 
> But if you think you can stop me from aborting a pregnancy inside my body, try it. Come for me bud.
> 
> You are NOT in control. It rankles. I get it. Sucks for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sock....no doubt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality bothers you. I realize that. It's why folks like you try SO HARD to change reality. It's the Old (Wo)man Yelling at Cloud Syndrome.
> 
> I'm not bothered by your sock comment and honestly have no idea what it means. But if the sock makes you feel more secure in your false reality, you should definitely grab whatever comfort you can find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a sock account. Screen name and the thread you barged in on is a dead give away.
> 
> Off to ignore ya go, sock puppet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly I am new here, lol. I'm still trying to figure out how this forum works. Here is my response -
> 
> Oh I see. You can't argue my reality, so you dismiss me as irrelevant. It's why you'll never win this abortion battle. You aren't in control. Fact.
Click to expand...


Not only are you a sock puppet, you're also stupid enough to use the phrase "my reality", not understanding that this is an oxymoron (I know, you have no idea what that is.  Look it up).

If you equate abortion with "being in control", YOU are clearly the one with no control.  Seek help for your paranoia; they have meds for that.

FLUSH!


----------



## PoliticalChic

playtime said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities*
> May 26th, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK, NY—Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un arrived at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices Friday on a diplomatic mission to learn from the abortion provider’s legendary methods of manipulating the media and covering up human rights atrocities, sources confirmed.
> 
> “In North Korea, we are usually the best at everything,” the ruthless dictator told reporters outside the organization’s offices. “But we have to admit that Planned Parenthood is far better than even the great Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when it comes to spinning, distorting, and pulling strings to cover up their daily trampling of human rights.”
> 
> “We’re here to learn from the experts,” he added.
> 
> The North Korean delegate reportedly met with leaders at Planned Parenthood, where a panel of public relations professionals demonstrated the organization’s advanced methods of squashing any clear evidence of its brutal, callous slaughtering of human babies the moment it arises.
> 
> “So you just get a judge to pull all the damning videos right away, and charge those trying to expose you with felonies? Amazing. We don’t even have that kind of power over the media back in Pyongyang.”
> 
> At publishing time, Planned Parenthood spokespeople had shown an impressed Kim Jong-un the organization’s direct hotline to various media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Snopes.com, whom they could phone in a moment’s notice to drum up a defense for any leaked videos of their barbaric practices."
> Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the same NK piglet that trump loves long time?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to be so very good at reducing you Leftists to clearly false and insipid posts.
> 
> 
> 
> But.....I have had a great deal of practice.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but but but your dear leader says that they are ' in love '!!!!!!    remember or are you choosing ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That failed once already.....put a little effort into this, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 
> ....come back when the conversation gets around to monster trucks and favorite Crayola.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh i see -  you don't wanna acknowledge the love affair between the dear leaders....
> 
> but will justify a ridiculous meme
> 
> yep... you are being your typical circus act again.
Click to expand...




As the saying goes, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a Liberal.

Here's help: this is what everyone recognizes about you:


Things more trustworthy than you:

a. Mexican tap water

b. A rattlesnake with a 'pet me' sign

c. Taking the elevator with Ray Rice

d. Bill Cosby as the bartender

e. A Jimmy Carter economic plan

f. emails from a Nigerian princess

g. Brian Williams newscast.

h. The Jeffrey Dahmer Diner special of the day

I. Obama’s promise about your doctor




That's how it's done......bet you wish you could be as clever while skewering the enemy.




Now, do everyone a favor and get lost.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is legalized murder. Plain and simple.
> 
> Murdering your unborn child for convenience sake, is psychotic.
> 
> Remember BO playing to the baby killers with...” iWow don’t want to penalize them with a baby.”  Ugh!  Grandpa wants his grandchild murdered. Now that is pathological.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An unwanted pregnancy is like a penalty.  Here they are on their path, whether college or just starting a areer, and you would force them to carry that fetus 9 months or stop everything to raise a child.
> 
> It is you that wants to restrict access to birth control & then butch when women get pregnant.  The epitome of stupidity.
Click to expand...


Wow, I so needed a man (biologically speaking, anyway) to inform me that giving birth is a "penalty", a "punishment", something horrible that will ruin my life.  I just cannot get enough of men telling me about the experiences of women and how I should think and feel about them, because we women are apparently only "equal" and "liberated" when it comes to our legal ability to kil the babies that dickhead men don't want; other than that, leftist men clearly think women are too stupid to think without them telling us what thoughts to have.

Very "pro-woman" of you, Assfuck Dave.


----------



## NotYourBody

Cecilie1200 said:


> Not only are you a sock puppet, you're also stupid enough to use the phrase "my reality", not understanding that this is an oxymoron (I know, you have no idea what that is.  Look it up).
> 
> If you equate abortion with "being in control", YOU are clearly the one with no control.  Seek help for your paranoia; they have meds for that.
> 
> FLUSH!



Tell me your plans to stop me from having an abortion if that is my decision. Until you do that, you're spitting in the wind pal.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20+ pages since last night and all I've seen is the same leftist posters refusing to acknowledge science and precedent while regurgitating their debunked talking points as NotYourBody cheer-leads with her juvenile "LA LA LA LA I'LL DO AS I PLEASE LA LA LA LA NO NO NO NO LA LA LA LA TTTHTHHHHBBBBPPPPPPTTTTT!!!!" antics.
> 
> It's like watching a fucking kindergarten classroom.
> 
> 
> 
> The science has already been addressed. There are only theories in science that address when life begins, as bad as you want to believe otherwise.
> 
> Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins
> 
> Biology and evolution of life science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it’s true we don’t know when life begins then I don’t know how you think you have the upper hand here: your assumptions are no better than anyone else’s and you may very well be ending a life.
> 
> Your rationale is like shooting through a door where someone may or may not be on the other side. Even though someone might be on the other side but you can’t prove there is, fire away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have the upper hand. That's the whole point. Neither does anyone else. Which is the point. If you want to play God, and not have an abortion,  fine, but don't subject me to your game, whatever that game is. The sheer fact that man does not know when life begins, does not give others the right to push their moral judgments around, because of their religious reasons. It ends up a violation of the Constitution. Which is why their was a Roe vs. Wade in the first place. And I fail to see how and why that is so hard for the Right to understand? My only logical conclusion, is that no matter what they're religious reasons are, it  trumps the reasons of others, and they'll use any reason necessary, absent any religious or scientific evidence. But ha, that's their problem. Stop making it mine.
Click to expand...


Okay, I understand all that. But the fact remains you might still be ending a life.

At the end of the day it still comes down to placing more importance on personal rights than the life of a child.

As I’ve already said in this discussion, I have no solution to reconcile the two but, there it is.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to some, the state can control everything - government is all-powerful don't ya know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t go that far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're supporting government regulation of reproduction, you pretty much are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is controlling reproduction. You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have zero babies. Reproduction is not the issue.
> *
> ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> The keyword is not reproduction, it’s KILLING. But of course you guys don’t have the cajones or honesty to say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do nearly half of zygotes naturally abort.
> 
> If fertilization happens in the lab, does the technician have to care for it until birth & if he doesn't, is it murder too?
Click to expand...


Why do 100% of humans die?  What the fuck kind of stupid question is that, Assfuck Dave?


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sock....no doubt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality bothers you. I realize that. It's why folks like you try SO HARD to change reality. It's the Old (Wo)man Yelling at Cloud Syndrome.
> 
> I'm not bothered by your sock comment and honestly have no idea what it means. But if the sock makes you feel more secure in your false reality, you should definitely grab whatever comfort you can find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a sock account. Screen name and the thread you barged in on is a dead give away.
> 
> Off to ignore ya go, sock puppet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly I am new here, lol. I'm still trying to figure out how this forum works. Here is my response -
> 
> Oh I see. You can't argue my reality, so you dismiss me as irrelevant. It's why you'll never win this abortion battle. You aren't in control. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When and if you reach adulthood you may come to realize we all have some control which we exercise in the choices we make. However some really feel so powerless that they choose to slaughter defenseless babies because gives them a sense of power.
> 
> Very sad and sooo leftarded.
> 
> Oh yeah ... and welcome rookie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So women feel empowered in an abortion?  You are the most ignorant person yet.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should listen a little closer to the leftist shrews.  Or even to yourself, when you're parroting the "don't piss off the crazy women" talking points you leftist eunuchs are handed.


----------



## Death Angel

playtime said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  by whom pray tell?   the same 'christian' that started this silly rant?  who kept trying to move the religion goal posts?  the same one who never did answer the quandary that  the OT master of the universe dealt her?  the same one who has yet to answer whether she would be happy to have her taxes raised to pay for all them thar kiddies forced upon society & will need their health, nutritional, clothing, housing, & educational needs met?
> 
> <pfffft>
Click to expand...

You are a joke.

Is an "adolescent" human? A "pre-teen"? A teenager? A senior citizen?

A "zygote" and an "embryo" and a "fetus" are DESCRIPTIONS OF STAGED OF DEVELOPMENT of the human baby.

A baby chicken starts as each if these, but it IS a chicken, just at a HUMAN in the embryo or fetal stage IS HUMAN.

You guys just keep losing but you're too damn stupid to realize it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I will never allow ANYONE to have ANY control over my body EVER. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already do. You always have. You want it that way, you need it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another winner! Wow, so much Winning! today. I love it!
> 
> And who said conservatives can't accept reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your arrested development is preventing you from looking at things rationally.
> 
> There are many many laws that prevent you or me or anyone else from doing certain things with our bodies and/or to other people. Without these laws people like you, for example, would not Long survive. Therefore, you have always lived under a system where you are specifically told what you can and cannot do with your body. You want it that way. You need it that way. This is the truth no matter what the little five-year-old emotional basket case inside U screams about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prohibition against abortion is about as useful as the prohibition against suicide.  Abortion has been with us since the caveman days when the herbal healers identified plants which were aborificants and women used them.  The "witches" who were burned at the stake were midwives and herbal healers who often provided women with abortions as well as delivering their babies.  Burn them alive.  Witches all!
> 
> You fools are no different.  Seeking to control women or jail them for making their own decisions.  As always, only the poor will be forced to procreate.  The middle class white people will still be able to afford a weekend in Canada.  Only the poor will be harmed by these laws.
> 
> Same as it ever was.
Click to expand...


This old chestnut again.  "You can't make XYZ illegal, because people have always done it, and always will!"  Never mind that you can say that about anything we nevertheless make illegal.  I can only assume that either leftists are stupid, or they think everyone else is, with this idea that if something can't be eliminated 100%, it should be allowed or even encouraged.

Oh, and let's not forget the absolutely-untrue-but-Dragontwat's-blogs-told-her-to-believe-it lie about "jailing women".  This is what you get when women start thinking that just having a vagina is an accomplishment, and actually thinking and trying to be smart is unnecessary.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you all bitches belong to the state!
Click to expand...


Only if you believe that the existence of any laws makes people "property of the state".


----------



## Cecilie1200

beagle9 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care at all about your moral judgements. They mean less than nothing to me.
> 
> My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It the same way reality always works. You cannot stop someone from driving drunk, but you can arrest them and punish them if you catch them.
> 
> Same thing with abortion. You'll just have to find the pregnant woman who aborted the baby and then you can put her in jail. You CANNOT stop her from aborting the baby.
> 
> In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
Click to expand...


How in the hell do you educate people who assiduously ignore any and all facts in order to declare their feelings to be "science"?  You can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can't force him to think if he clings to his idiocy like a teddy bear.


----------



## Cecilie1200

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.. un.
> 
> At least you admit the scope of what you want to do. Does the term "social engineering" ring a bell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving lives is social engineering now ??? LOL
Click to expand...


It is . . . just like convincing people that it wasn't okay to bash other people over the head with a rock was "social engineering".  The entirety of human history as we advanced from primitive savages to civilized beings has been about social engineering to enable that advance.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would know better than what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
Click to expand...


Oh, well, if the likes of YOU tells me that militant defense of any abortion, any time, for any reason isn't really "pro-abortion", I'll get right on . . . continuing to identify it as I see it, and not giving a rat's ass what euphemisms the seedy underbelly of human intellect would prefer.

Call me when YOU start letting the right-wing dictate and define the terms YOU use, and maybe we'll talk about you getting a vote on what I call your putrescent agenda.


----------



## Geaux4it

NotYourBody said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until POTUS unscrewed things, I thought SCOTUS ruled during ACA that a woman *DOES NOT* have control over her body
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right? Because I never lost control over my body even once after ACA happened.
Click to expand...

Really, what if you had not wanted ACA? You would of paid the fine? Yes, you did have a choice but you may have been punished financially for your transgressions

-Geaux


----------



## night_son

Cecilie1200 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> 
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It the same way reality always works. You cannot stop someone from driving drunk, but you can arrest them and punish them if you catch them.
> 
> Same thing with abortion. You'll just have to find the pregnant woman who aborted the baby and then you can put her in jail. You CANNOT stop her from aborting the baby.
> 
> In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the hell do you educate people who assiduously ignore any and all facts in order to declare their feelings to be "science"?  You can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can't force him to think if he clings to his idiocy like a teddy bear.
Click to expand...


What's even more fascinating, in a train wreck sort of manner, is how the pro-death crowd continues their collective cluelessness as to whom originally put the idea into their heads it was normal, natural and morally upright to murder born and unborn children. Their messiah has a name, yet they know it not. When one reveals that name, they seem to read right through or over it. Hint:_ He_ wrote_ The 120 Days of Sodom_ wherein a group of children are kidnapped and raped to death. That's the foundation of the modern pro-abortion movement and the seed of its cultural popularity. Now isn't that something to be proud of? Are we even sharing the same planet with these people?


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*My body. Not your body. My control. Not your control.*" - _screeched the DUI suspect as he was hauled off to jail. _
> 
> 
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It the same way reality always works. You cannot stop someone from driving drunk, but you can arrest them and punish them if you catch them.
> 
> Same thing with abortion. You'll just have to find the pregnant woman who aborted the baby and then you can put her in jail. You CANNOT stop her from aborting the baby.
> 
> In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe some kind of boot camp, where young women are taught proper Christian values. What would the punishment be for refusing to go?
Click to expand...


Boot camp?  So what are you saying, that you think women are too stupid to modify their behavior according to changing circumstances without being herded into camps?  We're all just dumb sluts who can't help spreading our legs without intensive training?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was? Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views.  Life - Wikipedia
> 
> The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly hope so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
Click to expand...


Um, babies ARE children, Noah Webster.  Geez, how do you even function with such a substandard grasp of the English language?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus.  *If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. * However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion.  90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage.  At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement.  Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring.  At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain.  In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain.  It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body.  Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That in red.....A human fetus is alive and developing......a human corpse is dead and has no life.   A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living.   A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and.....will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA.   Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
Click to expand...


Now let me get this straight.  You are saying you actually need that explained to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Geaux4it said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure there will never be an end to this topic until people learn to keep their hands to themselves and stop trying to control tissue inside another person's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please do take your own advice and keep your hands to yourself instead of callously killing innocents, for the sake of convenience and selfishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your permission to control my body, though it is completely unnecessary. I will continue to control my body and ALL of the tissue contained inside of my body thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you must be overjoyed Obamacare was axed since that program disagreed with your above statement. Remember, they DID NOT let you control your body. Pay for a crappy plan or pay the fine
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


To be fair, that was just controlling your wallet, not your body.  No one actually fined you for not going to the doctor once you had paid an exorbitant amount of money for insurance.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Borillar said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion isn't safe, you can die from it. Also have complications that can affect a woman for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can die or have complications from childbirth too.
Click to expand...


That's like saying, "Smoking isn't bad, because you can get lung cancer and die just from living in a big city."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Leo123 said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
Click to expand...


Speaking as a woman, I can't argue with you on that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no need whatever to bring Trump into this conversation.
Click to expand...


Then why did you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

gipper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.
Click to expand...


Have YOU ever heard that condoms aren't 100% effective?  Better to just not have sex with a woman whose position you're unsure of, if this issue matters to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Leo123 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 100%.   But, I am all for protection as much as possible.   Besides Bill Clinton taught us that there are lots of other ways to have sex.  Cigar, etc.  LOL
Click to expand...


Now, now.  The Democrats told us repeatedly that that was NOT sex; it's just their equivalent of a friendly handshake . . . or something.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all the more reason to answer the question! If you don't care if you look like a psychopath, then you should have no problem answering this question:  Do you think there would be anything wrong with a woman who is minutes away from delivery butchering her full-term preborn baby who is no different than a newborn, simply because he is still inside her body?  Come on! If you don't care what anyone thinks, then just answer the question.
> 
> If you don't, then you can't defend your position, not rationally or in a sincere way. All you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la la la" like a 3 year old, and stomp your feet like an angry rebellious teenager. How sad. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is tantrumping here? I'm presenting you with REALITY. It's not a position. Can you not understand that, realistically, you can't stop abortion?
> 
> It sucks not to have control. I get it. 3-year olds have many problems with loss of control.
> 
> I however, have NOT lost control of my body and everything inside of it.
> 
> You seem to be the one stomping around, mad and enraged that you want to control the fetus inside my uterus, but cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear to me now that you don't understand how debate works.  None of those things you brought up matter right now. That's not even the topic here.  We've been debating abortion, and you have yet to provide an argument, all you have are red herrings, and immature, selfish, unthinking responses.
> 
> How old are you, 15 maybe?  That's my guess. Actually, I take that back. My 14 year old niece is FAR more mature than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a couple of 15 year old twins that could take her to school.
Click to expand...


My ten-year-old could beat her like a bass drum in a debate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

gipper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 100%.   But, I am all for protection as much as possible.   Besides Bill Clinton taught us that there are lots of other ways to have sex.  Cigar, etc.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that the usual response. Is there anything in life 100%?  I would guess condoms are about as close to 100% as anything.
Click to expand...


Actually, birth control medications used by women are more effective than condoms.  Still, abstinence works better than either.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> FYI:
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insults
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "A human fetus is a being because it is alive and has human DNA and....."  This is pretty deep stuff.
Click to expand...


No, it's really basic.  The fact that you nevertheless require having it explained to you speaks volumes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!



What took you so long?  Alyssa Milano figured that out last week or so.  Even among the brain-damaged community that is the American left, you're on the short bus.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I mentioned it to a couple of Trump supporters, and they were shocked that sex was somehow connected to pregnancy. Next, I plan on telling them that tariffs are taxes, but it is best to crawl before walking.
Click to expand...


"Well, I thought if I made up conversations with imaginary people where I was the smartest one there, it would make up for being an insufferable moron in real life."


----------



## Vandalshandle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would know better than what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, well, if the likes of YOU tells me that militant defense of any abortion, any time, for any reason isn't really "pro-abortion", I'll get right on . . . continuing to identify it as I see it, and not giving a rat's ass what euphemisms the seedy underbelly of human intellect would prefer.
> 
> Call me when YOU start letting the right-wing dictate and define the terms YOU use, and maybe we'll talk about you getting a vote on what I call your putrescent agenda.
Click to expand...


Ok. I am aware that the RW has their own dictionary. It includes the following terms that have been coined for their purposes: Pro-abort, gun grabber, deep state, fake news, libtard, baby killers, Dimocrats, Democrat Party, DemoRats, Trump Derangement Syndrome, etc. Anyone disagreeing is a traitor, etc. If is how the Right gets their rocks off. Far be it for me to interfere with RW Newspeak.


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.
> 
> And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
> 
> I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.
> 
> But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.
Click to expand...


Sadly, humans don't really need demons to be evil.  We're pretty good at it without any help.


----------



## Cecilie1200

gipper said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, today, I learned that unprotected sex is unwise. Therefor, all we have to do is to let people know that, and the whole problem is solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay time for some logical thinking.
> 
> Before Roe how many abortions occurred?  Now compared that figure to the number after Roe?  Can you come to the conclusion that when it became legal it also occurred much more often?  If it is outlawed again, do you think it will occur much less often?
Click to expand...


Interestingly enough, the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births also went up after the legalization of abortion.

It's almost as if people actually do modify their behavior according to external circumstances.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay time for some logical thinking.
> 
> Before Roe how many abortions occurred?  Now compared that figure to the number after Roe?  Can you come to the conclusion that when it became legal it also occurred much more often?  If it is outlawed again, do you think it will occur much less often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before Roe, physicians did not do abortions. The performed D & C's.
Click to expand...


That is the most pathetic attempt at word-parsing I've heard since "It's not a baby, it's a fetus!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.
> 
> And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
> 
> I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.
> 
> But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it's best that you stay away from pro-choice women? Keep yourself pure. Don't be tainted. Stay far far far away from us. Save yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I will continue to reach the ones who are actually reasonable, sincere and open to change.  And there _are _people like that who identify as prochoice. I've been debating this topic for years, and I've seen with my own two eyes people change their minds.  (Heck, my own mind changed on this issue. I used to be on the other side.)   The other types, the arrogant, angry ones that seem to be demonically influenced... well, I don't think they are reachable, but they do need prayer, so I guess I should pray for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you will not reach the women who refuse to allow anyone else to control her body or anything inside of it. That is a fact.
> 
> I'm sorry that upsets you so much.
> 
> I promise I will never try to stop you from attempting to convince women that they should follow YOUR religion, morality, values, life choices, your pregnancy rules and whatever else you think you need to control in women. And if you are successful with that, more power to you. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't pretend you can stop us with words on paper. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.
> 
> I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.
> 
> And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.
> 
> Here's an image from their page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad that you are not old enough to remember before Roe. The truth is that people saw what was happening, and made a change for the better. BTW, I fail to see how putting MD's in prison is a win/win situation.
Click to expand...


Too bad that all your arguments are based on "I'm right just because I want to believe I'm right."

The truth is that "people" didn't make any change.  Nine lawyers in black robes did, and decreed that everyone else was just going to live with it.  Only fools like you who like being told what to think consider that "better".


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to spoil your blind little narrative, but I HAVE actually been a part of changing people's minds.  I've seen it happen more than once.  It doesn't upset me at all, because as I said, I KNOW there are some reasonable, sincere people who identify as prochoice... but ultimately value truth more than their preconceived ideas or selfish desires.  In other words, people unlike you.
> 
> I wouldn't bother even discussing this issue if I thought it was hopeless.  Even if some people are not ready yet to learn or change, never underestimate the power of planting a seed.
> 
> And your idea that this has to do with religion just shows more of your ignorance. There are many secular prolifers, and a growing number, actually.  Look up the group 'Secular Pro-life" on Facebook.
> 
> Here's an image from their page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't really know what your reasons are for trying to control a body that is not your own, and honestly I don't care.
> 
> Again. I will not try to stop you from changing minds! Why would I even want to do that?
> 
> My position is that when you start legislating control of my body, I will start hollering. And reminding you that you don't have the power to stop me.
> 
> I thought you were upset. Sorry if I made a wrong assumption. When people resort to name calling, it seems a little defensive, jmo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lolol.  Wow. The interesting this is how you always *completely* leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."
> 
> Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:
Click to expand...


Look, you.  How dare you tell me that "If you don't like slavery, just don't buy one" isn't a valid argument?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would know better than what?
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
Click to expand...


Oh, spare me.  You would favor regulations on how much toilet paper you can wipe your ass with if government decided to pass them, and your hypocritical ass really thinks you're qualified to criticize others for not being small-government enough to suit you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".
> 
> These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue.  If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed.  That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it.  THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.
Click to expand...


"If it's not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist . . . because I'm too pig-stupid to remember more than one document!"


----------



## Vandalshandle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".
> 
> 
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "If it's not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist . . . because I'm too pig-stupid to remember more than one document!"
Click to expand...


Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.
> 
> Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.
> 
> I'm still in control. You are not.
> 
> But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NotYourBody*. Not your body either because one day the *Grim Reaper *is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shes right and you know it.
Click to expand...


I think you're assuming a much higher level of intelligence than the evidence indicates.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let me get this straight.  You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate.   Maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories.  They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic.  And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion.  The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.
Click to expand...


Um, I'm not really seeing how this fixes anything.  Did you somehow imagine that the only objection women who get abortions have is to the physical process of pregnancy?


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before  it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly hope so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be if left alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If left alone, it would not survive
Click to expand...


You could say the same for a lot of people outside of a uterus.  What's your point?


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).
> 
> A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.
> 
> Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.
> 
> Epic fail everytime
Click to expand...


What amuses me is how they flip back and forth between "The Bible is stupid and it supports my position and it's stupid and it agrees with me".  It's a wonder they don't all have whiplash.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mac1958 said:


> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_
> 
> So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
> 
> _Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
> .



Sorry, did you just tell us we "have" to support something because YOU decided that our beliefs required it?  And who was it that elected you Supreme Arbiter of What Other People's Beliefs Have To Include?


----------



## Mac1958

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.  *_So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, did you just tell us we "have" to support something because YOU decided that our beliefs required it?  And who was it that elected you Supreme Arbiter of What Other People's Beliefs Have To Include?
Click to expand...

Is all innocent life sacred, or is it not?
.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Abortion: 

(uh-bawr-shuh) n

The modern-day child sacrifice *to the God of self.*


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
Click to expand...


I didn't realize anyone even read his posts.  I know I see his name and just keep scrolling.  I'd put him on ignore, but it's more effort than he's worth.


----------



## playtime

PoliticalChic said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the same NK piglet that trump loves long time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to be so very good at reducing you Leftists to clearly false and insipid posts.
> 
> 
> 
> But.....I have had a great deal of practice.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but but but your dear leader says that they are ' in love '!!!!!!    remember or are you choosing ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That failed once already.....put a little effort into this, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 
> ....come back when the conversation gets around to monster trucks and favorite Crayola.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh i see -  you don't wanna acknowledge the love affair between the dear leaders....
> 
> but will justify a ridiculous meme
> 
> yep... you are being your typical circus act again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the saying goes, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a Liberal.
> 
> Here's help: this is what everyone recognizes about you:
> 
> 
> Things more trustworthy than you:
> 
> a. Mexican tap water
> 
> b. A rattlesnake with a 'pet me' sign
> 
> c. Taking the elevator with Ray Rice
> 
> d. Bill Cosby as the bartender
> 
> e. A Jimmy Carter economic plan
> 
> f. emails from a Nigerian princess
> 
> g. Brian Williams newscast.
> 
> h. The Jeffrey Dahmer Diner special of the day
> 
> I. Obama’s promise about your doctor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it's done......bet you wish you could be as clever while skewering the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, do everyone a favor and get lost.
Click to expand...


wow wow wow.... that's a whole lotta bullshit, but the reality IS that

trump & the piglet are best buds.

they are in love

trump said so

AND them thar miss-iles that his date is launching is giving your dear leader & spanking & the dotard is like an abused girlfriend refusing to listen to reasonable voices telling him that. oh & one more thing....


----------



## Cecilie1200

SweetSue92 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning).  Dead people are DEAD.  They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.
> 
> A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".
> 
> One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
> 
> *Life*
> 
> Definition
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> _noun, plural: lives_
> 
> (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
> 
> A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't.  (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)
> 
> A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.
> 
> While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.
> 
> I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance).  This would be included in adaptation.  Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him.  The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.
> 
> You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.  Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.
> 
> If that’s what you believe, that’s your *CHOICE* but leave the rest of us out of it.
> 
> *IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> THINK, woman, for pity's sake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You first.  The woman is living, breathing and fully alive.  According to you, because women can control how many children to have and when, there is no law to protect living people from assault.
> 
> Again, *IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE*.  Allowing others to exercise their rights and freedoms according to their beliefs is the Constitutional and American thing to do.  Trying to legally impose your religious beliefs on others, violates the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about--this is profoundly stupid. You can't even seem to grasp how stupid your talking point of "If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one" is. That's like saying, "If you think rape is wrong, just don't get raped"....but it's fine if someone else gets raped?
Click to expand...


Well, if you don't agree with rape, then don't rape anyone.  But don't go butting into the personal choices of others by telling them THEY can't rape someone.

Just FYI, thinking like Dragontwat gives you a cramp in the brain if you're someone who isn't lobotomized.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Death Angel said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> …and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.
> 
> 
> 
> I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus.  Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs.  Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years.  The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks.  It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week.  When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion.  The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want.  Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.
> 
> Who will raise it?
> 
> Who is responsible for such a being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The parents. See how easy this is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? What parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Allah you guys are dumm
> 
> par·ent
> /ˈperənt/
> Learn to pronounce
> _noun_
> plural noun: *parents*
> 
> 1.
> a father or mother.
Click to expand...


Did you ever read "Brave New World", in which the words "father", "mother", and "parent" were actually considered obscenities?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....



Yeah, it's evident in the leftists around him who start frothing at the mouth and having nervous breakdowns.


----------



## playtime

Death Angel said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  by whom pray tell?   the same 'christian' that started this silly rant?  who kept trying to move the religion goal posts?  the same one who never did answer the quandary that  the OT master of the universe dealt her?  the same one who has yet to answer whether she would be happy to have her taxes raised to pay for all them thar kiddies forced upon society & will need their health, nutritional, clothing, housing, & educational needs met?
> 
> <pfffft>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a joke.
> 
> Is an "adolescent" human? A "pre-teen"? A teenager? A senior citizen?
> 
> A "zygote" and an "embryo" and a "fetus" are DESCRIPTIONS OF STAGED OF DEVELOPMENT of the human baby.
> 
> A baby chicken starts as each if these, but it IS a chicken, just at a HUMAN in the embryo or fetal stage IS HUMAN.
> 
> You guys just keep losing but you're too damn stupid to realize it.
Click to expand...


lol..............  & you are placing a pre born clump of cells - giving it the status of 'personhood' above any post born viable human that has a history. 

tsk tsk tsk....................


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-Lifers have to support banning all abortions, or they're being hypocrites.  _*Either life is sacred, or it is not.*_
> 
> So, if they're honest, they support the Alabama law.
> 
> And Trump is a murderer: https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...to-distance-himself-from-alabama-abortion-law
> 
> _Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday night, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions--Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother--the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."_
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, did you just tell us we "have" to support something because YOU decided that our beliefs required it?  And who was it that elected you Supreme Arbiter of What Other People's Beliefs Have To Include?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, or is it not?
> .
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way. _
> 
> _"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others. _
> 
> _It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can. _
> 
> _How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. *I won't hold my breath.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.
> 
> If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.
> 
> I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder._
> 
> _Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate._
> 
> _I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive._
> 
> _Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’
> 
> Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’
> 
> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.
> 
> And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize anyone even read his posts.  I know I see his name and just keep scrolling.  I'd put him on ignore, but it's more effort than he's worth.
Click to expand...


Jones is a blabber and run poster. Never defends his nonsense...he's a clown


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only when one of you unhinged loons lose your minds over one and beat someone over it..
Click to expand...


We really need a "Great Minds Think Alike" rating.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one is as stupid as a sack of hammers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is, they all agree. They want a world where THEY do as they please, without responsibility, and leave YOU and me to pay their way thru life. Self-centered bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a niece in Texas getting an abortion. Please send her a check for $1,815.
Click to expand...


I'll send her a sympathy card for having been born into such a shit family.


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> Abortion:
> 
> (uh-bawr-shuh) n
> 
> The modern-day child sacrifice *to the God of self.*



what say you about all the innocent precious lives taken from their mamas at the border?  they are as christian or even more so than your sorry ass.

*Matthew 25:35 *

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

* Hebrews 13:2 *

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

* Leviticus 19:33-34 *

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

* Romans 15:7 *

Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

*etc etc etc..........*


----------



## SassyIrishLass

playtime said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion:
> 
> (uh-bawr-shuh) n
> 
> The modern-day child sacrifice *to the God of self.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what say you about ll the innocent precious lives taken from their mamas at the border?  they are as christian or even more so than your sorry ass.
Click to expand...


Their mama's shouldn't break a nation's laws.

Oops


----------



## gipper

Cecilie1200 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 100%.   But, I am all for protection as much as possible.   Besides Bill Clinton taught us that there are lots of other ways to have sex.  Cigar, etc.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that the usual response. Is there anything in life 100%?  I would guess condoms are about as close to 100% as anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, birth control medications used by women are more effective than condoms.  Still, abstinence works better than either.
Click to expand...

I never stated they weren’t.


----------



## Mac1958

Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Everyone can forget about the religious angle on this. God talked to me about it, and told me that he is cool with abortion. In fact, he told me that was why there is nothing in the Bible about it. He also told me that he, personally, causes miscarriages every day.



Son, just because God communicated via the jawbone of an ass once doesn't mean that every ass flapping his jawbone is speaking for God.


----------



## gipper

Cecilie1200 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.
> 
> You'll never even know if I'm  pregnant. How you gonna stop me?
> 
> Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s stupid. Have your ever heard of a condom?  Are you aware that it is extraordinarily inexpensive and even a dumb believer in baby killing can easily use it without expert instruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have YOU ever heard that condoms aren't 100% effective?  Better to just not have sex with a woman whose position you're unsure of, if this issue matters to you.
Click to expand...

LOL. Condoms are just about fool proof. Yes they do fail, but most infrequently. 

How many abortions are the result of a failed condom?  I would guess very few. What’s your guess?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.



Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate

Fact


----------



## playtime

night_son said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only abortion was DUI, you'd have a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same principle you're blathering about. Why the fuck is it anyone's business if I decide to get drunk and drive my car around? My body, my choice, right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It the same way reality always works. You cannot stop someone from driving drunk, but you can arrest them and punish them if you catch them.
> 
> Same thing with abortion. You'll just have to find the pregnant woman who aborted the baby and then you can put her in jail. You CANNOT stop her from aborting the baby.
> 
> In 2015 (I think) there were well over 600,000 abortions. You probably need more jails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for more jails, just a renewed education for prevention process to take place, and a renewed responsibility education, and to reinstate the conciousness of respect for human life that has been lost in all of this mess.  The idoctronation of the citizens for years is something huge to undo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the hell do you educate people who assiduously ignore any and all facts in order to declare their feelings to be "science"?  You can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can't force him to think if he clings to his idiocy like a teddy bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's even more fascinating, in a train wreck sort of manner, is how the pro-death crowd continues their collective cluelessness as to whom originally put the idea into their heads it was normal, natural and morally upright to murder born and unborn children. Their messiah has a name, yet they know it not. When one reveals that name, they seem to read right through or over it. Hint:_ He_ wrote_ The 120 Days of Sodom_ wherein a group of children are kidnapped and raped to death. That's the foundation of the modern pro-abortion movement and the seed of its cultural popularity. Now isn't that something to be proud of? Are we even sharing the same planet with these people?
Click to expand...


6 precious innocent post born children dead at the border since december.  you must be so proud of your leader.


----------



## Mac1958

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> Fact
Click to expand...

Is all innocent life sacred, then?

Another poster won't answer.
.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Punkin Row isn't saying her ethics and values and morality are better than yours; she's denying the existence of yours entirely.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can forget about the religious angle on this. God talked to me about it, and told me that he is cool with abortion. In fact, he told me that was why there is nothing in the Bible about it. He also told me that he, personally, causes miscarriages every day.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't God but rather just the little voices in your toaster that inform so many leftarded opinions. Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't have a toaster. God told me that toasted bread is an abomination. If you have one, you must get rid of it, or you will be on the road to hell.
Click to expand...


You went off your meds again, didn't you?  You know the doctor told you not to do that.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, then?
> 
> Another poster won't answer.
> .
Click to expand...


Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work


----------



## Mac1958

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, then?
> 
> Another poster won't answer.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work
Click to expand...

So another poster who won't answer.

I figured that would be an easy one.

Okay.
.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, then?
> 
> Another poster won't answer.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So another poster who won't answer.
> 
> I figured that would be an easy one.
> 
> Okay.
> .
Click to expand...


You're building a straw man, dipshit. Give it a rest


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAYIT said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can forget about the religious angle on this. God talked to me about it, and told me that he is cool with abortion. In fact, he told me that was why there is nothing in the Bible about it. He also told me that he, personally, causes miscarriages every day.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't God but rather just the little voices in your toaster that inform so many leftarded opinions. Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't have a toaster. God told me that toasted bread is an abomination. If you have one, you must get rid of it, or you will be on the road to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah ... AOC heard that also. She now believes it's best to avoid talking to your toaster:
Click to expand...


Well, and the toaster is smarter than she is, like virtually everything else on Earth.


----------



## Mac1958

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, then?
> 
> Another poster won't answer.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So another poster who won't answer.
> 
> I figured that would be an easy one.
> 
> Okay.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're building a straw man, dipshit. Give it a rest
Click to expand...

My apologies.

I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.

How dare me.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> Fact
> 
> 
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, then?
> 
> Another poster won't answer.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So another poster who won't answer.
> 
> I figured that would be an easy one.
> 
> Okay.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're building a straw man, dipshit. Give it a rest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.
> 
> How dare me.
Click to expand...


All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.

Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.

We all know your game, fence sitter


----------



## playtime

Cecilie1200 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be solved unless people like YOU spread the word!!  Apparently there are a lot of people unaware of the consequences or, think that killing a living being is the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the only thing that stops abortion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. So enlightening.
> 
> Now what will prevent murder, rape, assault and robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. That will be why abortion will never be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay time for some logical thinking.
> 
> Before Roe how many abortions occurred?  Now compared that figure to the number after Roe?  Can you come to the conclusion that when it became legal it also occurred much more often?  If it is outlawed again, do you think it will occur much less often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births also went up after the legalization of abortion.
> 
> It's almost as if people actually do modify their behavior according to external circumstances.
Click to expand...


everything i can find on that subject shows just the opposite, including this article.

The American abortion rate is at an all-time low

perhaps you can give me some unbiased stats from a credible source that say otherwise?


----------



## Mac1958

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, then?
> 
> Another poster won't answer.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So another poster who won't answer.
> 
> I figured that would be an easy one.
> 
> Okay.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're building a straw man, dipshit. Give it a rest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.
> 
> How dare me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.
> 
> We all know your game, fence sitter
Click to expand...

You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.

If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
.


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure do bring up God and religion a lot. What comes to mind is the guy *doth protest too much*, methinks.  It’s not even the topic here, yet it’s in most of your posts.
> 
> Interesting. And telling.
Click to expand...



If it weren't for straw men, Vandal wouldn't have any friends at all.


----------



## Leo123

Cecilie1200 said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus.  Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad but true. Those suckers who think abortion is good for women seem oblivious to the fact that many men are *all for* abortion on demand because they want to use women as much as they want, without ever having to deal with any consequences.
> 
> And those foolish women continually allow that to happen, even to their own detriment, because they too don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
> 
> I have sympathy for the young women contemplating abortion who don't know any better, who have been brought up in today's messed up society that brainwashed them into thinking there's nothing wrong with abortion.
> 
> But the arrogant, adamant ones (like "NotYourBody") are truly disgusting to me, and as I said earlier, most likely demonically influenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, humans don't really need demons to be evil.  We're pretty good at it without any help.
Click to expand...


Yep, that's why objective (instead of subjective) morality is so important to a cohesive society.   It keeps humans from frequently exercising their evil side.   Objective (or traditional) morality is always supplanted by relative morality when someone or a group wants to overturn a societal system.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work
> 
> 
> 
> So another poster who won't answer.
> 
> I figured that would be an easy one.
> 
> Okay.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're building a straw man, dipshit. Give it a rest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.
> 
> How dare me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.
> 
> We all know your game, fence sitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.
> 
> If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
> .
Click to expand...

I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.

Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic

Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?

You're on par with that clown, Clayton Jones


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure do bring up God and religion a lot. What comes to mind is the guy *doth protest too much*, methinks.  It’s not even the topic here, yet it’s in most of your posts.
> 
> Interesting. And telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The great and mystical Karnack is divining my inner thoughts!
Click to expand...


Pffft!  As if anyone believes you have "inner thoughts".


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> 
> Fact
Click to expand...


but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby.  the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind  separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their  american 'daddy' is a rapist.... 

stunning.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Death Angel said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil.  Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, words on paper will not stop a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion if she makes that decision. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.
> 
> You have not stopped abortion, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This "argument" isnt winning you any points. You've been slapped around thoroughly and you just keep coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went back ten pages on this thread, and you haven't presented any logical arguments against abortion. You're a troll and a bull shitter.
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Good grief, I'll explain against since English apparently isn't your first language. I did not once state that you are not CAPABLE of murdering that child, I stated over and over that the subject has always been the ethics of the act. If you like, I can go back and show you a screenshot of every single post I've made in this thread, since you either don't understand or want to keep trying to paint my argument as something it isn't._
> 
> _Every single human on the planet is capable of murder, repeatedly stating that you can murder people and I can't stop you does not refute my argument that it is unethical. Do you just not understand what ethics are? Is that why you're not comprehending my posts?_
> _Ah, there we go. You lack the attention span to read my messages, you probably don't read anyone's messages, and that's why you're just repeating yourself. Well, that, and you have no principles to explain. You legitimately DO need a profound argument to prove the ethics of your position, however you have no interest in exchanging ideas here. You're like Gollum, you don't explain why the 'ring' is yours, you only repeatedly state that something is such. This is not debate, nor argumentation, just you talking at people._
> _All of my statements have been fact, not nonsense, hence you being unable to refute any of it. You'd be here to exchange ideas rather than repeat yourself, if your position were legitimate._
> 
> _"Pro-Choice" is a fallacious title, you're against the choice of the child to do with its own body and life as it pleases. This is something you've yet to bother to even begin to refute, and that's because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you support or condone baby murder you have no ethics, morals or values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are a cut and run coward who cannot debate the very thing you so adamantly proclaim. What is your argument that it is murder? Answer, you have none, because you cowardly ran from my question. It can only be murder when you establish absolute truth through evidence as to when life begins. You can't answer that question so you are posting lies about murder, ethics, morals, and values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh shaddup ya befuddled loon. I think you're a total waste of air
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of these people ALMOST make me want to rethink my position. But this kind of stupidity is TAUGHT. no one is born this stupid.
Click to expand...


Now, now.  It wouldn't be fair to kill an infant just because he MIGHT grow up to be a complete and total failure at humanity like these leftists.


----------



## Mac1958

SassyIrishLass said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So another poster who won't answer.
> 
> I figured that would be an easy one.
> 
> Okay.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're building a straw man, dipshit. Give it a rest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.
> 
> How dare me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.
> 
> We all know your game, fence sitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.
> 
> If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.
> 
> Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic
> 
> Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?
Click to expand...

I like your responses.

You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.

I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.

You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Mac1958 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're building a straw man, dipshit. Give it a rest
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.
> 
> How dare me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.
> 
> We all know your game, fence sitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.
> 
> If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.
> 
> Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic
> 
> Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like your responses.
> 
> You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.
> 
> I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.
> 
> You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
> .
Click to expand...


Gfy clownshoes, yer a nuthin.


----------



## playtime

Vandalshandle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "If it's not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist . . . because I'm too pig-stupid to remember more than one document!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.
Click to expand...


thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!
> 
> They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.
> 
> They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.
> 
> I'm gonna miss them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless.  Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can.  As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
Click to expand...


No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No. They have no legitimacy to demand that I murder anyone, especially on their behalf. They're just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers, who write opinions on paper, and back them with violence. I have no moral or ethical obligation to do anything they demand of me, and in fact, if they demand that I initiate force against someone else, I have a moral and ethical obligation NOT to do as I'm told._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, good for you! So, I have now established that at least one of your ethics is as valid as mine! Congratulations!
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm sure Punkin was just dying to have her ethics "validated" by the likes of you.  You continue to imagine that your opinions - and you - mean something to people.


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> everything i can find o that subject shows just the opposite, including this article.
> 
> The American abortion rate is at an all-time low
> 
> perhaps you can give me some unbiased stats from a credible source that say otherwise?



I found this...

"Medication abortions increased from 6% of all nonhospital abortions in 2001 to 31% in 2014, even while the overall number of abortions continued to decline. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the average time of abortion has shifted earlier within the first trimester; this is likely due, in part, to the availability of medication abortion services.11"

Induced Abortion in the United States

Medication abortions seem to be on the rise.   Probably the wave of the future in abortions because women have been convinced that conception does not equate to life and an early medication abortion is less harmful to the uterus.


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> 
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby.  the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind  separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their  american 'daddy' is a rapist....
> 
> stunning.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. The old “group of cells” LIE. 

Do advocates of baby murder ever tire of lying?


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion:
> 
> (uh-bawr-shuh) n
> 
> The modern-day child sacrifice *to the God of self.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what say you about ll the innocent precious lives taken from their mamas at the border?  they are as christian or even more so than your sorry ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their mama's shouldn't break a nation's laws.
> 
> Oops
Click to expand...


lol....   not good enough.  you are punishing an innocent child. 

OH & asking for asylum is not against our nation's laws.   

you fail.


----------



## Death Angel

playtime said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.
> 
> 
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "If it's not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist . . . because I'm too pig-stupid to remember more than one document!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
Click to expand...

The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately, they still train gynecologists to do D&C's, so even Hobby Lobby will have to start paying their employees through their insurance plan to have this done. Personally, I appreciate the irony!
Click to expand...


You're seriously babbling at this point.  Why would Hobby Lobby have to start paying for abortions just because gynecologists are trained to do dilation and curettage?  And why would we believe you would recognize irony if it were crawling up your pants leg?


----------



## playtime

Leo123 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> everything i can find o that subject shows just the opposite, including this article.
> 
> The American abortion rate is at an all-time low
> 
> perhaps you can give me some unbiased stats from a credible source that say otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found this...
> 
> "Medication abortions increased from 6% of all nonhospital abortions in 2001 to 31% in 2014, even while the overall number of abortions continued to decline. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the average time of abortion has shifted earlier within the first trimester; this is likely due, in part, to the availability of medication abortion services.11"
> 
> Induced Abortion in the United States
> 
> Medication abortions seem to be on the rise.   Probably the wave of the future in abortions because women have been convinced that conception does not equate to life and an early medication abortion is less harmful to the uterus.
Click to expand...


so your post even states that the OVERALL number of abortions have declined.

just like i said.  it makes sense that medically induced abortions would have risen as the more favorable method once it became available because that way, females in their EARLIEST stage of pregnancy would much rather use that with much more privacy instead of trying to cross  a bunch of extremist lunatics screaming at them.

d-u-h.


----------



## gipper

This is a group of cells...at ten weeks. 

Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> 
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby.  the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind  separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their  american 'daddy' is a rapist....
> 
> stunning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. The old “group of cells” LIE.
> 
> Do advocates of baby murder ever tire of lying?
Click to expand...


nope.  not a lie.   if it can't survive outside the host, then it's not a person & not equivical to a post born real person with a history.


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby.  the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind  separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their  american 'daddy' is a rapist....
> 
> stunning.



That "group of cells" is dividing and developing and will eventually create an autonomous human being.     They are, to put it bluntly, alive....When you kill them you are taking away a human life and precluding it's development into a fully functioning human being.  Now, you can rationalize that all you want but it is the truth.


----------



## playtime

Death Angel said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.
> 
> The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.
> 
> You ARE pro abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "If it's not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist . . . because I'm too pig-stupid to remember more than one document!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
Click to expand...


let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> 
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby.  the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind  separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their  american 'daddy' is a rapist....
> 
> stunning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. The old “group of cells” LIE.
> 
> Do advocates of baby murder ever tire of lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  not a lie.   if it can't survive outside the host, then it's not a person & not equivical to a post born real person with a history.
Click to expand...

BS. Are you a government attorney?  You are obviously a believer in the illogical.


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> nope.  not a lie.   if it can't survive outside the host, then it's not a person & not equivical to a post born real person with a history.



Still "it" is a living human entity.  Aborting kills that life that would have developed into a 'real person.'    The fetus is not meant to 'survive outside the host.'  Do some of you need a crash course into human reproductive biology?


----------



## Death Angel

playtime said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion:
> 
> (uh-bawr-shuh) n
> 
> The modern-day child sacrifice *to the God of self.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what say you about ll the innocent precious lives taken from their mamas at the border?  they are as christian or even more so than your sorry ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their mama's shouldn't break a nation's laws.
> 
> Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol....   not good enough.  you are punishing an innocent child.
> 
> *OH & asking for asylum is not against our nation's laws*.
> 
> you fail.
Click to expand...


The way it's being done IS.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm ready. I've been ready. Come for me pal.
> 
> Also, I promise I will NEVER try to stop you from trying to get those laws passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, continue. Those fat sexless hags running around in pussy hats have surely been a boon for your cause...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that we have pretty much cleared the board, other than the new kid, Satrebil, who has already outed himself as a RW radical. I think it is about time to wreck havoc somewhere else.
Click to expand...


I just heard you say, "I got my ass kicked and spit on by everyone, so it's time to run away while pretending I won something."

Btw, I think you meant "wreak", not "wreck".


----------



## TemplarKormac

Mac1958 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, then?
> 
> Another poster won't answer.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So another poster who won't answer.
> 
> I figured that would be an easy one.
> 
> Okay.
> .
Click to expand...


All life is important. Until such life presents itself to be harmful or dangerous. Sure, let's let all the people in and give them all medical care. Let's preserve life whenever and wherever we possibly can.

Then again, it is a gamble on whether that life will be grateful to you or not, or whether it will be malevolent.

Being "pro life" doesn't always mean preserving life for the sake of preserving it.


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?



$0 dollars.  My wife and I had children, raised them to functioning adults an NO ONE gave us a fucking DIME!!!  Some of you need to grow the fuck up.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If it's not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist . . . because I'm too pig-stupid to remember more than one document!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
Click to expand...

_Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> This is a group of cells...at ten weeks.
> 
> Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?
> View attachment 262858



except, your pic is dramatically enlarged & is not accurate...  it's about the size of a strawberry & completely not viable on its own.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Death Angel said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Anyone who intentionally kills an innocent in the womb, absent extenuating circumstances, deserves life in prison. IDGAF what their salutation is. As far as I'm concerned the doctor and the mother should rot together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in prison no parole. Very good. That woman will NEVER have another abortion. Problem solved.
> 
> Like I said to another poster. Advocate for that. Convince society. Go for it. It's the only power you have. There's always a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tide is turning against abortion and you know it. That's why your flailing all over this thread like a lunatic. It's called desperation, sweetie. You WILL see abortion dramatically restricted, if not made outright illegal, in your lifetime. Get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to employ violence to do it.  And you can sure as hell expect violence in return. What you're asking for will require totalitarian government. I know you don't care but lots of us do,  and we'll fight you tooth and nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I cant kill my baby up to, and beyond birth. I now live in a totalitarian state!
Click to expand...


Well, since the only "freedom" they care about is the freedom to kill inconvenient babies, you can see where they would consider totalitarianism to be taking away the only freedom they want to have.


----------



## playtime

Leo123 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby.  the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind  separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their  american 'daddy' is a rapist....
> 
> stunning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That "group of cells" is dividing and developing and will eventually create an autonomous human being.     They are, to put it bluntly, alive....When you kill them you are taking away a human life and precluding it's development into a fully functioning human being.  Now, you can rationalize that all you want but it is the truth.
Click to expand...


eventually - if left alone certainly can develop into a full person deserving of personhood. but that's not the point.  the point is the already post born person with their autonomy already having a history is what you want to force into being an incubating host against their will.


----------



## playtime

Leo123 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $0 dollars.  My wife and I had children, raised them to functioning adults an NO ONE gave us a fucking DIME!!!  Some of you need to grow the fuck up.
Click to expand...


but but but are you saying that once you force females to carry to full term & force them to deliver - then your job is done?  seems once the cord is cut that you care not about all those little persons running around.

yep.  typical pro lifer.


----------



## playtime

Pumpkin Row said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If it's not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist . . . because I'm too pig-stupid to remember more than one document!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
Click to expand...


wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a group of cells...at ten weeks.
> 
> Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?
> View attachment 262858
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except, your pic is dramatically enlarged & is not accurate...  it's about the size of a strawberry & completely not viable on its own.
Click to expand...

Means nothing killer. If that looks like a “group of cells” to you, you are much dumber than you look.


----------



## Leo123

TemplarKormac said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, then?
> 
> Another poster won't answer.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So another poster who won't answer.
> 
> I figured that would be an easy one.
> 
> Okay.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All life is important. Until such life presents itself to be harmful or dangerous. Sure, let's let all the people in and give them all medical care. Let's preserve life whenever and wherever we possibly can.
> 
> Then again, it is a gamble on whether that life will be grateful to you or not, or whether it will be malevolent.
> 
> Being "pro life" doesn't always mean preserving life for the sake of preserving it.
Click to expand...


Well if we DO NOT 'let all people in' it's not like we are sticking some instrument in their brain and killing them.   I think your comparison is way off.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system."
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  it's very much a part of a women's body.
Click to expand...


Well, thank you for that declaration of "scientific fact" from the cutting edge of 1910 or so.  Also, these new-fangled automobile things are just a fad, and will never catch on.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Leo123 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> Fact
> 
> 
> 
> Is all innocent life sacred, then?
> 
> Another poster won't answer.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border jumper children are not being killed, best find a new angle. This one isn't going to work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So another poster who won't answer.
> 
> I figured that would be an easy one.
> 
> Okay.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All life is important. Until such life presents itself to be harmful or dangerous. Sure, let's let all the people in and give them all medical care. Let's preserve life whenever and wherever we possibly can.
> 
> Then again, it is a gamble on whether that life will be grateful to you or not, or whether it will be malevolent.
> 
> Being "pro life" doesn't always mean preserving life for the sake of preserving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if we DO NOT 'let all people in' it's not like we are sticking some instrument in their brain and killing them.   I think your comparison is way off.
Click to expand...

sarcasm - Google Search


----------



## TemplarKormac

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?



If it were her body, she would essentially be aborting herself. 

Odd isn't it?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
Click to expand...

_Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._

_By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._

_To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._

_TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...


If you want to discuss abortion, you're pretty much going to spend 95% of your time arguing inanities, because it's very rare for a pro-abort to have anything else.


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just innocent AMERICAN lives are sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> 
> Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby.  the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind  separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their  american 'daddy' is a rapist....
> 
> stunning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. The old “group of cells” LIE.
> 
> Do advocates of baby murder ever tire of lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  not a lie.   if it can't survive outside the host, then it's not a person & not equivical to a post born real person with a history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. Are you a government attorney?  You are obviously a believer in the illogical.
Click to expand...


when will y'all start advocating locking women up?  after all, if you wanna go after the doctors - then you must imprison women who had or try to have an abortion.  they are just as much- if not more- a part of the murrrrrrrrrderrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> but but but are you saying that once you force females to carry to full term & force them to deliver - then your job is done?  seems once the cord is cut that you care not about all those little persons running around.
> 
> yep.  typical pro lifer.



First off, I never mentioned forcing any female to carry to full term.  You pulled that one out your fucking ass.  And no, I clearly mentioned my wife and I had children and raised them ourselves.  We didn't ask for government cheese because we 'made a mistake' because we didn't.   It's called RESPONSIBILITY.   Of course I care about children, I just can't and shouldn't be responsible for the 'mistakes' of others.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  is very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CHILD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no, the preborn is not "part" of the mother's body, unless you think a person can have 2 unique sets of DNA, 2 different blood types,  2 beating hearts, 4 arms and 4 legs, etc.  Come on now, you're once against proving the OP correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. A fetus isn't a child,  and it should never be afforded legal rights apart from those of its owner. To do so is insane and creates a bizarre legal environment where pregnant women are treated as state property.
Click to expand...


A fetus isn't a child because . . . why?  Because your feelz and your D in high school biology 30 years ago tell you so?

And no, pregnant women are not "treated as state property".  Could you be a little more melodramatic?  Maybe tell us how Snidely Whiplash is putting you and the orphans out into the snow?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU.  I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:
> 
> For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) *no one wants to control your reproduction.*
> 
> You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies.  *ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
> *
> So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights."  You're fighting for *killing* rights. At least be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings  lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane.  If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion!  You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to discuss abortion, you're pretty much going to spend 95% of your time arguing inanities, because it's very rare for a pro-abort to have anything else.
Click to expand...

So that explains why I haven't been able to find many posts in this thread to respond to...

*GASP*


----------



## Death Angel

playtime said:


> take care of them all who are *forced to be born *m'k?



Interesting "thinking" from the death cult.


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a group of cells...at ten weeks.
> 
> Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?
> View attachment 262858
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except, your pic is dramatically enlarged & is not accurate...  it's about the size of a strawberry & completely not viable on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means nothing killer. If that looks like a “group of cells” to you, you are much dumber than you look.
Click to expand...


killer?   LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  i have a son.  i CHOSE to have my son.  nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him.  see?  that was easy. 

it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female.  but you want to.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.
> 
> There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your justification for killing a unique human life in the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None is needed. Why do you think it's your business?
Click to expand...


Possibly the same reason we think it's our business to say that it's wrong for someone to break into your house and beat you to death for your TV and pocket change.

Or do you consider opposing that to be "totalitarian" as well?


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
Click to expand...


A nation that dismisses a living human organism as "body contents" on the basis of your seriously flawed and outdated understanding of biology has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights AND basic intelligence.


----------



## playtime

Pumpkin Row said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
Click to expand...


but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.  

but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.

do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.






*y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a group of cells...at ten weeks.
> 
> Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?
> View attachment 262858
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except, your pic is dramatically enlarged & is not accurate...  it's about the size of a strawberry & completely not viable on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means nothing killer. If that looks like a “group of cells” to you, you are much dumber than you look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> killer?   LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  i have a son.  i CHOSE to have my son.  nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him.  see?  that was easy.
> 
> it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female.  but you want to.
Click to expand...

Silly. If a woman wants to murder her husband...well you would say, “it’s your decision. Do as you wish.”

Do you fail to see how foolish that is?


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate
> 
> Fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby.  the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind  separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their  american 'daddy' is a rapist....
> 
> stunning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. The old “group of cells” LIE.
> 
> Do advocates of baby murder ever tire of lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  not a lie.   if it can't survive outside the host, then it's not a person & not equivical to a post born real person with a history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. Are you a government attorney?  You are obviously a believer in the illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when will y'all start advocating locking women up?  after all, if you wanna go after the doctors - then you must imprison women who had or try to have an abortion.  they are just as much- if not more- a part of the murrrrrrrrrderrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................
Click to expand...

Abortion is murder. We lock up murderers.


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a group of cells...at ten weeks.
> 
> Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?
> View attachment 262858
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except, your pic is dramatically enlarged & is not accurate...  it's about the size of a strawberry & completely not viable on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means nothing killer. If that looks like a “group of cells” to you, you are much dumber than you look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> killer?   LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  i have a son.  i CHOSE to have my son.  nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him.  see?  that was easy.
> 
> it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female.  but you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly. If a women wants to murder her husband...well you would say, “it’s your decision. Do as you wish.”
> 
> Do you fail to see how foolish that is?
Click to expand...


what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.

lol... silly you..............


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> killer?   LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  i have a son.  i CHOSE to have my son.  nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him.  see?  that was easy.
> 
> it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female.  but you want to.



You don't have to answer but: Did anyone force you into having the child as well?   Did you abort previous pregnancies?   I never forced a woman to have my child.  I was never a party to any woman having to get an abortion.


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby.  the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind  separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their  american 'daddy' is a rapist....
> 
> stunning.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother. The old “group of cells” LIE.
> 
> Do advocates of baby murder ever tire of lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  not a lie.   if it can't survive outside the host, then it's not a person & not equivical to a post born real person with a history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. Are you a government attorney?  You are obviously a believer in the illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when will y'all start advocating locking women up?  after all, if you wanna go after the doctors - then you must imprison women who had or try to have an abortion.  they are just as much- if not more- a part of the murrrrrrrrrderrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is murder. We lock up murderers.
Click to expand...


oh ya - that'll work out well for you.  please PLEASE make that the new motto of the 'GOP'.   do it loud & proud.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
Click to expand...

_I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._

_Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll submit to it if it becomes law or you will lose. Fact.  The state doesn't want to control human reproduction, only that all things pertaining to human rights and the handling of human life is done with the humanity and dignity that all life deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna make me submit? Details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an actual child? As in, not yet even 18? Because you reason like a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who refuses to accept reality. Much like a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this about 40 pages ago, but I guess I must do it again, because they just don't get it.
> 
> If my wife or child wanted an abortion, I would find a doctor in my state to do it. if I could not find one in my state, I would find a doctor who would do a D&C. If I could not find one, I would take my wife or child to other state. If I still could not find one, I would take my wife or child to another country. And, like you, there is absolutely no way that any of them is ever going to keep me from doing that.
Click to expand...


Dude, what the fuck are you talking about with this "If I could not find one, I'd find a doctor who would do a D&C"?  What, exactly, is it that you think you're saying here?

And for the life of me, I have no idea what point "I am going to do the evil I want to, no matter what it takes" is supposed to make to us, other than to be thankful that your sociopathic, self-absorbed ass doesn't live in OUR neighborhoods.


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.
> 
> lol... silly you..............



How is a fetus 'non-viable?'

viable adjective
us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.  In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.  

Oh look, a 'funnyface!'   Looks like I win again!!


----------



## playtime

Leo123 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> killer?   LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  i have a son.  i CHOSE to have my son.  nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him.  see?  that was easy.
> 
> it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female.  but you want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to answer but: Did anyone force you into having the child as well?   Did you abort previous pregnancies?   I never forced a woman to have my child.  I was never a party to any woman having to get an abortion.
Click to expand...


hmmmm - why do you say i don't hafta answer?  is it cause it's really none of your business & a privacy issue? 

interesting.  as i said b4 i had a choice & i chose what was best for me based on the circumstances i was in at that point in my life when i had him.  of course you never were a party to any woman... you might have been able to have input  & if you were in a real relationship - you should have had input.

BUT -  there's only one final decision to be made & it shouldn't be yours or the government.


----------



## TemplarKormac

playtime said:


> but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.



Which begs the question:

Are they children when they are born? They seem to require the same sustenance as when they were in the womb. They are just as dependent on the mother outside of the womb as they were inside.

Yet you argue they are not children while they are forming _in_ the womb.

Curiouser and curiouser...


----------



## playtime

Leo123 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.
> 
> lol... silly you..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a fetus 'non-viable?'
> 
> viable adjective
> us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
> able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:
> 
> VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.
Click to expand...


when a fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own or even without extreme medical intervention, then it is non viable.  *to force *a woman into making that fetus grow to the point it can survive outside her uterus - then you are  reducing her to a living incubator.


----------



## playtime

TemplarKormac said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question:
> 
> Are they children when they are born? They seem to require the same sustenance as when they were in the womb. They are just as dependent on the mother outside of the womb as they were inside.
> 
> Yet you argue they are not children while they are forming _in_ the womb.
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser...
Click to expand...


actually, no....  by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut.  do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas?  who keeps cutting programs like  WIC  & CHIP?


----------



## playtime

Pumpkin Row said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> 
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
Click to expand...


<pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
Click to expand...




playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
Click to expand...


She made perfect sense...it's not her fault you're baffled...again


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
Click to expand...

_Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._

_My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She made perfect sense...it's not her fault you're baffled...again
Click to expand...


ha! oh i am positive that her pablum made perfect sense to you........................


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.
> 
> lol... silly you..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a fetus 'non-viable?'
> 
> viable adjective
> us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
> able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:
> 
> VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when a fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own or even without extreme medical intervention, then it is non viable.  *to force *a woman into making that fetus grow to the point it can survive outside her uterus - then you are  reducing her to a living incubator.
Click to expand...


No a fetus inside the womb is NOT 'non viable' that is pro-abort speak and not part of American English.  A woman IS a human incubator you dufus.  That's the whole point of human existence to REPRODUCE.   You blithely add the word 'forced' in order to emotionalize your POV.   You have already been TOLD that rape is a heinous crime and we are not talking about that.   Yet you continue to beat the same damn drum.   You didn't even address my last post you just went off on your own tangent once again.   Frankly I'm sick of your blather.


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
Click to expand...


What really creeps me out is the notion that acknowledging that the new human being you yourself created has a claim on you and your responsibility is somehow "slavery" or "making you into the state's property".


----------



## playtime

Pumpkin Row said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
Click to expand...


   poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.


----------



## TemplarKormac

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
Click to expand...


Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.


----------



## playtime

Leo123 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.
> 
> lol... silly you..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a fetus 'non-viable?'
> 
> viable adjective
> us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
> able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:
> 
> VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when a fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own or even without extreme medical intervention, then it is non viable.  *to force *a woman into making that fetus grow to the point it can survive outside her uterus - then you are  reducing her to a living incubator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No a fetus inside the womb is NOT 'non viable' that is pro-abort speak and not part of American English.  A woman IS a human incubator you dufus.  That's the whole point of human existence to REPRODUCE.   You blithely add the word 'forced' in order to emotionalize your POV.   You have already been TOLD that rape is a heinous crime and we are not talking about that.   Yet you continue to beat the same damn drum.   You didn't even address my last post you just went off on your own tangent once again.   Frankly I'm sick of your blather.
Click to expand...


it's not my 'POV'.  if you condone forcing her to carry & give birth then you are reducing her to nothing BUT an incubator.  that's all she is in your eyes.  no woman should be forced to be that & nothing more.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
Click to expand...


Yes. Personal responsibility was and is in play here.

I'll wait for the "what about rape!!!" diversion.


----------



## playtime

TemplarKormac said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> 
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.
Click to expand...


nope.  i am pro choice. &  it's not what i think or believe that matters  when it comes to another female.  but nice try.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

playtime said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She made perfect sense...it's not her fault you're baffled...again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ha! oh i am positive that her pablum made perfect sense to you........................
Click to expand...


It did and judging from ratings on my post it seems it only escaped you

Think hard, clownshoes


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Personal responsibility was and is in play here.
> 
> I'll wait for the "what about rape!!!" diversion.
Click to expand...


yes it is about personal responsibility.  it's their personal choice to do the responsible thing based on their life circumstances & is not any of my business nor yours.  if a female wants to bring to term her rapists child or perhaps her own sibling... or not.... guess what?

HER choice.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> wamose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your body contains a human with a heartbeat and feelings, You're a murderer if you kill tat child..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and, yet, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, on several different levels. but, keep swinging, kid!
Click to expand...


The sign of a person with tapioca between his ears:  "The Supreme Court ruled THIS, so that makes it true and right!"


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> 
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She made perfect sense...it's not her fault you're baffled...again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ha! oh i am positive that her pablum made perfect sense to you........................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did and judging from ratings on my post it seems it only escaped you
> 
> Think hard, clownshoes
Click to expand...


lol...  your ilk would agree with you no matter what.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
Click to expand...

_Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._

_Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._

_The act is therefor unethical._

_What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._

_The fact is that force is not required for a child to be carried to term, it will naturally happen in the absence of force._


----------



## TemplarKormac

playtime said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  i am pro choice. &  it's not what i think or believe that matters  when it comes to another female.  but nice try.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge. If what you think or believe doesn't matter, according to you, then why are you in this thread opining about abortion?


----------



## playtime

Pumpkin Row said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> _The act is therefor unethical._
> 
> _What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._
Click to expand...


you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slave owners. Yes, that is your mentality. Claiming control of my body is what slavery is all about.
> I'm glad you recognize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an original thought in your head? Just like BWK earlier, your responses are akin to “I know you are but what am I?”  In fact everything you have said on this thread is on the level of a five-year-old child.
> 
> I could list numerous ways why you are exactly like a slaveowner. You dehumanize your victim, just as the slaveowners did, to justify killing the victim. You think that you can own another human being, just like the slaveowners did, in this case your own child.  You have zero respect for people who are not like you, just like the slaveowners did. You have zero respect for human life, just like the slaveowners did. You discriminate based on age, size and location, instead of skin color.
> 
> And just like slavery, the barbaric practice of abortion will one day be illegal, because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible  people who grow and evolve past those barbaric, selfish cruel mindsets.  Hopefully one day you will, but  whether you do or not, you’ll eventually learn, as I have been telling you.
Click to expand...


You forgot that the Supreme Court also upheld slavery AND Jim Crow . . . another point in common with abortion.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pumpkin Row said:


> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefore regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefore putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._



BINGO.

Can we all go home now?


----------



## playtime

TemplarKormac said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
> 
> 
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  i am pro choice. &  it's not what i think or believe that matters  when it comes to another female.  but nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. If what you think or believe doesn't matter, according to you, then why are you in this thread opining about abortion?
Click to expand...


because my believes are not being forced onto anyone thru legislation unlike what the OP & the pro birthers want.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TemplarKormac said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefore regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefore putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO.
> 
> Can we all go home now?
Click to expand...


May as well the loons keep repeating the same tired shit over and over again


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you own yourself and you alone.  No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that  another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusion will lead you into a world of hurt. The aftermath of your idiocy will make Prohibition look like a walk in the park. You can't have the kind of power over people that you want.
Click to expand...


Tell it to the people who want to ban Big Gulps and dictate how much water to flush with.  You're not going to impress anyone with your "reasonableness" over how not killing unborn babies is "fascism".


----------



## playtime

TemplarKormac said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefore regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefore putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO.
> 
> Can we all go home now?
Click to expand...


y'all  are welcome to go back 'home' anytime....







ba-byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........................


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> _The act is therefor unethical._
> 
> _What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?
> 
> next.
Click to expand...

_Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._

_She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._

_This makes it unethical._

_Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._


----------



## buttercup

playtime said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question:
> 
> Are they children when they are born? They seem to require the same sustenance as when they were in the womb. They are just as dependent on the mother outside of the womb as they were inside.
> 
> Yet you argue they are not children while they are forming _in_ the womb.
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually, no....  by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut.  do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas?  who keeps cutting programs like  WIC  & CHIP?
Click to expand...


I know you have to try to dehumanize the preborn in order to justify your vile pro-death position, but we're not going to let you get away with that. Here's a preborn at 8 weeks.  I don't see a "parasitic clump of cells", do you?   It's only a few "cells" immediately after conception, which obviously is not when most surgical abortions occur.  And even THEN, in the earliest stages, those "cells" are a brand new, genetically unique human being.

I can tell by reading your posts that you also completely failed basic biology, so I figured photos would work better for you than text.








And watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.
> 
> That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
> *I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.
> 
> Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your justification for killing a unique human life in the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet again: citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.
> 
> The state has no authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not – it’s her body and her choice, a choice guaranteed by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you think all laws are objective absolute truths, never to be questioned, your constant focus on current laws is illogical and a waste of time.   For once, stop hiding behind the law and start arguing from the standpoint of ethics and truth.
Click to expand...


He's not even talking about laws here.  He's hiding behind the alternate reality he lives in, where abortion is mentioned in the Constitution, on a par with freedom of speech.


----------



## TemplarKormac

playtime said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  i am pro choice. &  it's not what i think or believe that matters  when it comes to another female.  but nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. If what you think or believe doesn't matter, according to you, then why are you in this thread opining about abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because my believes are not being forced onto anyone thru legislation unlike what the OP & the pro birthers want.
Click to expand...

Funny, do I look like a member of congress to you? I can't force anything on anyone. 

Would be interesting if I could, but that's not a power I have nor want.

Furthermore, when you say "it's her choice and her choice alone" you are trying to force that assertion on others. You make this choice out to be one monolithic thing that only a woman can make without any outside input. 

Essentially you're saying: 

"My beliefs are superior to yours, you must submit to my logic"


----------



## playtime

Pumpkin Row said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> _The act is therefor unethical._
> 
> _What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._
> 
> _This makes it unethical._
> 
> _Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._
Click to expand...


her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?


----------



## TemplarKormac

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> _The act is therefor unethical._
> 
> _What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._
> 
> _This makes it unethical._
> 
> _Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?
Click to expand...


Quod Erat Demonstandum.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't posted to you. I already know that you literally don't care about anything but yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the same politics used by the left for their social engineering agenda. Anyone who opposes it is accused of not caring about whatever problem they're addressing. If you oppose government health care, you want poor people to go without. If you oppose "free" college, you hate education. If you opposed an abortion ban, you must be a selfish jerk who loves abortion.
> 
> How does it feel to be a statist liberal?
Click to expand...


In case you haven't noticed, YOU are the one who is currently on the same side as the people who use those arguments you cited.  Might want to take a good look around at your allies before trying to declare your position as "conservatism" based merely on the fact that you dribbled it out.


----------



## SAYIT

NotYourBody said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to respond to your arguments because you haven't demonstrated you have the ability to enforce them. It's a waste of time until you are willing to detail your plans.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't have to respond but this is a public message forum and this thread is about the inability of anti-lifers to make valid arguments in support of your beliefs and the best you can muster is "you are a poopy-head, so there." It seems to me that is exactly the kind of "maturity" that would lead one to believe slaughtering and flushing babies is a fine idea.

BTW, Indiana now requires you to bury or cremate the remains. It seems individual states are challenging RvW incrementally. You better get your abortion(s) while you can still murder legally.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> _The act is therefor unethical._
> 
> _What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._
> 
> _This makes it unethical._
> 
> _Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?
Click to expand...

_I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway._

_Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it._

_Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading._


----------



## playtime

TemplarKormac said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  i am pro choice. &  it's not what i think or believe that matters  when it comes to another female.  but nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. If what you think or believe doesn't matter, according to you, then why are you in this thread opining about abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because my believes are not being forced onto anyone thru legislation unlike what the OP & the pro birthers want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, do I look like a member of congress to you? I can't force anything on anyone.
> 
> Would be interesting if I could, but that's not a power I have nor want.
> 
> Furthermore, when you say "it's her choice and her choice alone" you are trying to force that assertion on others. You make this choice out to be one monolithic thing that only a woman can make without any outside input.
> 
> Essentially you're saying:
> 
> "My beliefs are superior to yours, you must submit to my logic"
Click to expand...


lol... what?  she can have all the outside input  she wants or have none at all.   that's my belief.  i am not superior nor inferior to anyone & neither is the one that needs to make her own decision.  & you see - i have no problem whatsoever making sure people aren't hungry or homeless regardless of their age...  & i have no problems with my taxes going to something that prevents it from happening in the first place.   i not olny talk the talk but walk the walk.  i am pro choice & pro life when that is what the mama wants.  

not just pro birth & turn my back after they leave the delivery room unlike most extremists on this here thread.


----------



## gipper

Leo123 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.
> 
> lol... silly you..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a fetus 'non-viable?'
> 
> viable adjective
> us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
> able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:
> 
> VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.  In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.
> 
> Oh look, a 'funnyface!'   Looks like I win again!!
Click to expand...

The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.


----------



## playtime

Pumpkin Row said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> _The act is therefor unethical._
> 
> _What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._
> 
> _This makes it unethical._
> 
> _Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway._
> 
> _Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it._
> 
> _Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading._
Click to expand...


except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive. 

next.


----------



## TemplarKormac

playtime said:


> lol... what? she can have all the outside input she wants or have none at all.



That's not what you're saying. 

Who is it referring to the unborn child as "her property"?

YOU.

By using that particular phrase, you are suggesting that no outside input is allowed.


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.
> 
> lol... silly you..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a fetus 'non-viable?'
> 
> viable adjective
> us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
> able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:
> 
> VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.  In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.
> 
> Oh look, a 'funnyface!'   Looks like I win again!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.
Click to expand...


what bullshit.


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.
> 
> lol... silly you..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a fetus 'non-viable?'
> 
> viable adjective
> us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
> able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:
> 
> VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.  In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.
> 
> Oh look, a 'funnyface!'   Looks like I win again!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what bullshit.
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## buttercup

playtime said:


> actually, no....  by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut.  do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas?  who keeps cutting programs like  WIC  & CHIP?



Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows.  But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites? 


*Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite*


a) A parasite is defined as an organism of _one_ species living in or on an organism of _another_ species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). 

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (_Homo sapiens_) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the _same_ species (_Homo sapiens_) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.


a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an _outside_ source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an _inside_ source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.


a) A parasite is _generally harmful_ to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity _does not usually cause harm_ to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.


a) A parasite makes _direct_ contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)

b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes _indirect_ contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.


a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and _cut it off_ from other surrounding tissue (examples would be _Paragonimus westermani_, lung fluke, or _Oncocerca volvulus_, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and _does not cut it off_ from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.


a) When a parasite invades a host, the host _will usually respond_ by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., _General Parasitology_, p. 8.)


b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.


a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which _must_ begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.


a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

*A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.*

(This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​
Source: http://www.l4l.org/l


----------



## playtime

TemplarKormac said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol... what? she can have all the outside input she wants or have none at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what you're saying.
> 
> Who is it referring to the unborn child as "her property"?
> 
> YOU.
> 
> By using that particular phrase, you are suggesting that no outside input is allowed.
Click to expand...


  her uterus & what's inside it b4 viability is her property.  she can have input if she wants, but the final decision is hers.  it really is that easy to understand.


----------



## TemplarKormac

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> _The act is therefor unethical._
> 
> _What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._
> 
> _This makes it unethical._
> 
> _Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway._
> 
> _Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it._
> 
> _Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.
> 
> next.
Click to expand...




TemplarKormac said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question:
> 
> Are they children when they are born? They seem to require the same sustenance as when they were in the womb. They are just as dependent on the mother outside of the womb as they were inside.
> 
> Yet you argue they are not children while they are forming _in_ the womb.
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser...
Click to expand...


You never answered my question, by the way.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> _The act is therefor unethical._
> 
> _What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._
> 
> _This makes it unethical._
> 
> _Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway._
> 
> _Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it._
> 
> _Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.
> 
> next.
Click to expand...

_False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading._

_All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature. _


----------



## Vandalshandle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!
> 
> They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.
> 
> They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.
> 
> I'm gonna miss them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless.  Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can.  As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
Click to expand...



"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.

But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.
> 
> lol... silly you..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a fetus 'non-viable?'
> 
> viable adjective
> us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
> able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:
> 
> VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.  In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.
> 
> Oh look, a 'funnyface!'   Looks like I win again!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


i've used the words viability without out medical intervention  & viability with it,  & post born persons with a history  many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.


----------



## gipper

TemplarKormac said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol... what? she can have all the outside input she wants or have none at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what you're saying.
> 
> Who is it referring to the unborn child as "her property"?
> 
> YOU.
> 
> By using that particular phrase, you are suggesting that no outside input is allowed.
Click to expand...

Apparently the abortionist believe a woman has the right to determine life and death, without any outside involvement. That is one Hell of a right. 

Where is that in the Constitution?  Maybe they think it says the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the right to murder my unborn child.


----------



## SAYIT

playtime said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First trimester *development* of embryo/*fetus*. A *developing baby* is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of *pregnancy*. ... During the third month of *pregnancy*, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.
Click to expand...

Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.

JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that.  you are trying to compare a gestational  non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.
> 
> lol... silly you..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a fetus 'non-viable?'
> 
> viable adjective
> us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
> able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:
> 
> VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.  In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.
> 
> Oh look, a 'funnyface!'   Looks like I win again!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i've used the words viability without out medical intervention  & viability with it,  & post born persons with a history  many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.
Click to expand...

Viability is bs and you know it.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!
> 
> They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.
> 
> They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.
> 
> I'm gonna miss them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless.  Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can.  As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
Click to expand...


She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.

14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

John 10:14-18


13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 14 *He gave himself *for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good.

Titus 2:13-14


6 who *gave himself *as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at his appointed time.

1 Timothy 2:6


----------



## playtime

buttercup said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....  by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut.  do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas?  who keeps cutting programs like  WIC  & CHIP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows.  But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites?
> 
> 
> *Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite*
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is defined as an organism of _one_ species living in or on an organism of _another_ species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (_Homo sapiens_) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the _same_ species (_Homo sapiens_) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an _outside_ source.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an _inside_ source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is _generally harmful_ to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
> .
> b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity _does not usually cause harm_ to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite makes _direct_ contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes _indirect_ contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and _cut it off_ from other surrounding tissue (examples would be _Paragonimus westermani_, lung fluke, or _Oncocerca volvulus_, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
> 
> b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and _does not cut it off_ from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades a host, the host _will usually respond_ by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., _General Parasitology_, p. 8.)
> 
> 
> b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which _must_ begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
> 
> *A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
> 
> A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.*
> 
> (This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​
> Source: http://www.l4l.org/l
Click to expand...


uh-huh.   different species being the distinction without a difference.  if it feeds on the host to survive & cannot live with out that host then yep - it's parasitic.


----------



## playtime

Pumpkin Row said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?
> 
> next.
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._
> 
> _This makes it unethical._
> 
> _Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway._
> 
> _Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it._
> 
> _Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading._
> 
> _All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature. _
Click to expand...


what should happen to females that try to abort if roe v wade is overturned?


----------



## buttercup

playtime said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....  by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut.  do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas?  who keeps cutting programs like  WIC  & CHIP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows.  But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites?
> 
> 
> *Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite*
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is defined as an organism of _one_ species living in or on an organism of _another_ species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (_Homo sapiens_) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the _same_ species (_Homo sapiens_) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an _outside_ source.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an _inside_ source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is _generally harmful_ to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
> .
> b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity _does not usually cause harm_ to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite makes _direct_ contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes _indirect_ contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and _cut it off_ from other surrounding tissue (examples would be _Paragonimus westermani_, lung fluke, or _Oncocerca volvulus_, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
> 
> b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and _does not cut it off_ from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades a host, the host _will usually respond_ by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., _General Parasitology_, p. 8.)
> 
> 
> b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which _must_ begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
> 
> *A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
> 
> A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.*
> 
> (This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​
> Source: http://www.l4l.org/l
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh-huh.   different species being the distinction without a difference.  if it feeds on the host to survive & cannot live with out that host then yep - it's parasitic.
Click to expand...


You're joking, right?  You actually believe the preborn baby is a different species?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

SAYIT said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First trimester *development* of embryo/*fetus*. A *developing baby* is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of *pregnancy*. ... During the third month of *pregnancy*, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but *if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells"* (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.
> 
> JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.
Click to expand...

_Every human is made up of cells, claiming that a child is "just" that doesn't excuse his position on murdering it. Even if we assume that at any point, it's truly dead, before it would supposedly hypothetically 'come to life', that would still be murder. At the moment of conception, the information contained within what was just murdered would have still contained the information on what kind of person it would be, that person is therefor still murdered. This means that even if it's killed a second before he would consider it alive, it's still murder, and this applies to any point. _


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is a fetus 'non-viable?'
> 
> viable adjective
> us  /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
> able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:
> 
> VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being.  Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.  In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.
> 
> Oh look, a 'funnyface!'   Looks like I win again!!
> 
> 
> 
> The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i've used the words viability without out medical intervention  & viability with it,  & post born persons with a history  many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viability is bs and you know it.
Click to expand...


 nope it's not.


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i've used the words viability without out medical intervention  & viability with it,  & post born persons with a history  many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viability is bs and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope it's not.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless.  Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can.  As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
Click to expand...


Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First trimester *development* of embryo/*fetus*. A *developing baby* is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of *pregnancy*. ... During the third month of *pregnancy*, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.
> 
> JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.
Click to expand...

He gave up on the “glob of cells” fallacious argument several pages back, when I blew it up.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._
> 
> _This makes it unethical._
> 
> _Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway._
> 
> _Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it._
> 
> _Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading._
> 
> _All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what should happen to females that try to abort if roe v wade is overturned?
Click to expand...

_Since the Government will never overturn Roe V. Wade, as it helps them control the population, decreasing the size it would be, allowing it to sustain itself for a longer duration, by reducing cost of Social Programs, I'll assume you're being hypothetical. _

_Nothing the Government does is ever ethical in any way, therefor I don't advocate that they do anything. In the absence of Government force, however, I'd think that knowing someone murdered a child would cause some people to feel strongly about it, so that person would likely be brought to Private Arbiters by many people._


----------



## playtime

buttercup said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....  by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut.  do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas?  who keeps cutting programs like  WIC  & CHIP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows.  But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites?
> 
> 
> *Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite*
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is defined as an organism of _one_ species living in or on an organism of _another_ species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (_Homo sapiens_) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the _same_ species (_Homo sapiens_) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an _outside_ source.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an _inside_ source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is _generally harmful_ to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
> .
> b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity _does not usually cause harm_ to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite makes _direct_ contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes _indirect_ contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and _cut it off_ from other surrounding tissue (examples would be _Paragonimus westermani_, lung fluke, or _Oncocerca volvulus_, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
> 
> b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and _does not cut it off_ from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades a host, the host _will usually respond_ by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., _General Parasitology_, p. 8.)
> 
> 
> b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which _must_ begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
> 
> *A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
> 
> A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.*
> 
> (This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​
> Source: http://www.l4l.org/l
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh-huh.   different species being the distinction without a difference.  if it feeds on the host to survive & cannot live with out that host then yep - it's parasitic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?  You actually believe the preborn baby is a different species?
Click to expand...


oh holy cow i said that is the DISTINCTION  without a DIFFERENCE.   meaning that 'just because'  the zygote/embryo/unviable fetus has human DNA... does not make it any less parasitic because a definition says that it needs to be of a different species.  the resulting mannerisms is still all the same when it's weeks or a few months in gestation.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> what bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i've used the words viability without out medical intervention  & viability with it,  & post born persons with a history  many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viability is bs and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.
Click to expand...


I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.

 What?


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First trimester *development* of embryo/*fetus*. A *developing baby* is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of *pregnancy*. ... During the third month of *pregnancy*, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.
> 
> JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He gave up on the “glob of cells” fallacious argument several pages back, when I blew it up.
Click to expand...


lol..no not really.  & i am a she.


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.
Click to expand...


They are not mutually exclusive.   Jesus and the Father are ONE.  This is basic stuff, I can't believe you're even arguing that Jesus did not give His life willingly.  I could post lots more verses for you, if you want.


----------



## playtime

Pumpkin Row said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?
> 
> 
> 
> _I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway._
> 
> _Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it._
> 
> _Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading._
> 
> _All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what should happen to females that try to abort if roe v wade is overturned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Since the Government will never overturn Roe V. Wade, as it helps them control the population, decreasing the size it would be, allowing it to sustain itself for a longer duration, by reducing cost of Social Programs, I'll assume you're being hypothetical. _
> 
> _Nothing the Government does is ever ethical in any way, therefor I don't advocate that they do anything. In the absence of Government force, however, I'd think that knowing someone murdered a child would cause some people to feel strongly about it, so that person would likely be brought to Private Arbiters by many people._
Click to expand...


alrighty then... how do you feel if a female is brought in front of 'private' arbitrators. then?  what should they do to her?


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not mutually exclusive.   Jesus and the Father are ONE.  This is basic stuff, I can't believe you're even arguing that Jesus did not give His life willingly.  I could post lots more verses for you, if you want.
Click to expand...


People cherry picking the Bible is one of many reasons that I am an atheist, so don't bother.


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> 
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First trimester *development* of embryo/*fetus*. A *developing baby* is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of *pregnancy*. ... During the third month of *pregnancy*, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.  it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.
> 
> JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He gave up on the “glob of cells” fallacious argument several pages back, when I blew it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol..no not really.  & i am a she.
Click to expand...

Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i've used the words viability without out medical intervention  & viability with it,  & post born persons with a history  many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viability is bs and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.
> 
> What?
Click to expand...


I ask again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> an embryo/fetus is not a person born in the United States; as a consequence, it is not a citizen, not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every fucking time you meatheads bring this up, I point out fetal homicide laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws that were pushed through deliberately for the purpose of creating a wedge for the anti-abortionist cause. Not much validation really.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was just about political opposition to the wonder that is your position.  Couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the families of victims, because they can't possibly have actually valued those fetuses.  You, the Lord High Arbiter of What Matters, have decreed that they are worthless and therefore no one else is allowed to care about them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.
Click to expand...


The difference being Jesus was already born when he died on the cross for our sins. What good would Jesus have been to the world if God demanded Mary have an abortion? 

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." 

Nah, you can't justify your position. I'll keep my Bible, thanks. Perhaps you need a new dictionary. Look up what the word "begotten" means. 

I'll give you a clue: The child is already born.


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope.  it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.
> 
> JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He gave up on the “glob of cells” fallacious argument several pages back, when I blew it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol..no not really.  & i am a she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...


so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.  an embryo looks even less than what you posted & a zygote even less than that.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i've used the words viability without out medical intervention  & viability with it,  & post born persons with a history  many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viability is bs and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.
> 
> What?
Click to expand...

I would like to stop murder...but since we can’t, let’s allow it. see how dumb your argument is?


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> an embryo/fetus is not a person born in the United States; as a consequence, it is not a citizen, not a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every fucking time you meatheads bring this up, I point out fetal homicide laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws that were pushed through deliberately for the purpose of creating a wedge for the anti-abortionist cause. Not much validation really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fetal homicide laws existed long before Roe v Wade you assclown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've been radical expanded by pro-lifers, dingleberry.
Click to expand...


Mostly, they've been expanded by people who recognize that the victims of those crimes valued their unborn children, even against your express directive that they shouldn't.

But hey, way to throw crime victims under the bus in pursuit of your own selfish whims.


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope.  it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.
> 
> 
> 
> Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.
> 
> JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He gave up on the “glob of cells” fallacious argument several pages back, when I blew it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol..no not really.  & i am a she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
Click to expand...

I am very good at reading between the lines.


----------



## Death Angel

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.
Click to expand...

What the hell does that mean in the tard mind?


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.
> 
> JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> He gave up on the “glob of cells” fallacious argument several pages back, when I blew it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol..no not really.  & i am a she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> i've used the words viability without out medical intervention  & viability with it,  & post born persons with a history  many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Viability is bs and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would like to stop murder...but since we can’t, let’s allow it. see how dumb your argument is?
Click to expand...


Since you did not answer my question, and it has already been demonstrated that you can not stop abortions, I assume that you are posting here because you want to make general condemnations. Ok. Now, that won't change anything, but does it make you feel belter?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Death Angel said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell does that mean in the tard mind?
Click to expand...


Lol he doesn't know he's blabbering


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> He gave up on the “glob of cells” fallacious argument several pages back, when I blew it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol..no not really.  & i am a she.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you are female?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not mutually exclusive.   Jesus and the Father are ONE.  This is basic stuff, I can't believe you're even arguing that Jesus did not give His life willingly.  I could post lots more verses for you, if you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People cherry picking the Bible is one of many reasons that I am an atheist, so don't bother.
Click to expand...


Oh look, an atheist doing the very thing that he says made him an atheist.


----------



## buttercup

playtime said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....  by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut.  do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas?  who keeps cutting programs like  WIC  & CHIP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows.  But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites?
> 
> 
> *Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite*
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is defined as an organism of _one_ species living in or on an organism of _another_ species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (_Homo sapiens_) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the _same_ species (_Homo sapiens_) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an _outside_ source.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an _inside_ source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is _generally harmful_ to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
> .
> b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity _does not usually cause harm_ to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite makes _direct_ contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes _indirect_ contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and _cut it off_ from other surrounding tissue (examples would be _Paragonimus westermani_, lung fluke, or _Oncocerca volvulus_, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
> 
> b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and _does not cut it off_ from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades a host, the host _will usually respond_ by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., _General Parasitology_, p. 8.)
> 
> 
> b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which _must_ begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
> 
> *A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
> 
> A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.*
> 
> (This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​
> Source: http://www.l4l.org/l
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh-huh.   different species being the distinction without a difference.  if it feeds on the host to survive & cannot live with out that host then yep - it's parasitic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?  You actually believe the preborn baby is a different species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh holy cow i said that is the DISTINCTION  without a DIFFERENCE.   meaning that 'just because'  the zygote/embryo/unviable fetus has human DNA... does not make it any less parasitic because a definition says that it needs to be of a different species.  the resulting mannerisms is still all the same when it's weeks or a few months in gestation.
Click to expand...


lol.   I'm actually laughing here. Nice try, but the article thoroughly debunks that ugly, hateful claim. It is abundantly clear from reading your posts that you have no knowledge of basic biology, and now you think you know more than a Professor of Biology?   Give it a rest.

You make that claim because you HAVE TO try to dehumanize the victim, in order to justify killing.  It's the same thing they did with Blacks, with Jews, etc.  Dehumanization always happens before someone wants to trample all over someone else's basic human rights.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol..no not really.  & i am a she.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure you are female?
Click to expand...


Leftists change day to day


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Viability is bs and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would like to stop murder...but since we can’t, let’s allow it. see how dumb your argument is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you did not answer my question, and it has already been demonstrated that you can not stop abortions, I assume that you are posting here because you want to make general condemnations. Ok. Now, that won't change anything, but does it make you feel belter?
Click to expand...

I guess to you it is surprising that I don’t like murder. Why do you?  Are you the grandson of Himmler?


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol..no not really.  & i am a she.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure you are female?
Click to expand...


are you sure you think that was a burn?


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> i've used the words viability without out medical intervention  & viability with it,  & post born persons with a history  many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Viability is bs and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would like to stop murder...but since we can’t, let’s allow it. see how dumb your argument is?
Click to expand...



Ok. Well, by god, WAR is, and always has been evil, and is nothing but murder on a mass scale, and I demand that it be stopped! I want a Supreme Court who will agree with me on that make it illegal for this country to go to war! If you don't agree with me, you are aiding and abetting murderers. I will rant about this all day on message boards until it is STOPPED!


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would like to stop murder...but since we can’t, let’s allow it. see how dumb your argument is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you did not answer my question, and it has already been demonstrated that you can not stop abortions, I assume that you are posting here because you want to make general condemnations. Ok. Now, that won't change anything, but does it make you feel belter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess to you it is surprising that I don’t like murder. Why do you?  Are you the grandson of Himmler?
Click to expand...


What are you going to do about it?


----------



## buttercup

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not mutually exclusive.   Jesus and the Father are ONE.  This is basic stuff, I can't believe you're even arguing that Jesus did not give His life willingly.  I could post lots more verses for you, if you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People cherry picking the Bible is one of many reasons that I am an atheist, so don't bother.
Click to expand...


One doesn't need to "cherry pick" something as fundamental as that, I've never even encountered anyone who has denied that before. lol.   I can see now why you're an atheist, you don't even understand the most basic tenets of Christianity.

But anyway, this is off topic.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
Click to expand...


. . . Says the guy standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those same leftists right now.


----------



## playtime

buttercup said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....  by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut.  do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas?  who keeps cutting programs like  WIC  & CHIP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows.  But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites?
> 
> 
> *Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite*
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is defined as an organism of _one_ species living in or on an organism of _another_ species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (_Homo sapiens_) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the _same_ species (_Homo sapiens_) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an _outside_ source.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an _inside_ source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is _generally harmful_ to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
> .
> b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity _does not usually cause harm_ to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite makes _direct_ contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes _indirect_ contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and _cut it off_ from other surrounding tissue (examples would be _Paragonimus westermani_, lung fluke, or _Oncocerca volvulus_, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
> 
> b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and _does not cut it off_ from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
> 
> 
> a) When a parasite invades a host, the host _will usually respond_ by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., _General Parasitology_, p. 8.)
> 
> 
> b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which _must_ begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
> 
> 
> a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
> 
> b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
> 
> *A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
> 
> A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.*
> 
> (This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​
> Source: http://www.l4l.org/l
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh-huh.   different species being the distinction without a difference.  if it feeds on the host to survive & cannot live with out that host then yep - it's parasitic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?  You actually believe the preborn baby is a different species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh holy cow i said that is the DISTINCTION  without a DIFFERENCE.   meaning that 'just because'  the zygote/embryo/unviable fetus has human DNA... does not make it any less parasitic because a definition says that it needs to be of a different species.  the resulting mannerisms is still all the same when it's weeks or a few months in gestation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.   I'm actually laughing here. Nice try, but the article thoroughly debunks that ugly, hateful claim. It is abundantly clear from reading your posts that you have no knowledge of basic biology, and now you think you know more than a Professor of Biology?   Give it a rest.
> 
> You make that claim because you HAVE TO try to dehumanize the victim, in order to justify killing.  It's the same thing they did with Blacks, with Jews, etc.  Dehumanization always happens before someone wants to trample all over someone else's basic human rights.
Click to expand...


lol... of course i know biology... & the rest of your drivel is nothing but  apples & oranges my dear... apples & oranges.  

don't talk about basic human rights when you want to strip a post born female her right to not be pregnant & not carry to full term & not to give birth against her will.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Personally, I don't know any "proaborts".



No one's interested in how the voices in your head define things.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway._
> 
> _Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it._
> 
> _Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading._
> 
> _All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what should happen to females that try to abort if roe v wade is overturned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Since the Government will never overturn Roe V. Wade, as it helps them control the population, decreasing the size it would be, allowing it to sustain itself for a longer duration, by reducing cost of Social Programs, I'll assume you're being hypothetical. _
> 
> _Nothing the Government does is ever ethical in any way, therefor I don't advocate that they do anything. In the absence of Government force, however, I'd think that knowing someone murdered a child would cause some people to feel strongly about it, so that person would likely be brought to Private Arbiters by many people._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> alrighty then... how do you feel if a female is brought in front of 'private' arbitrators. then?  what should they do to her?
Click to expand...

_I imagine that would depend on the people. I don't suppose one can simply refund a life, however if the Arbiter is known for their rulings being too steep or non-effective, and not actually benefiting the affected parties, nobody would agree to go to that Arbiter. I imagine that in most cases, a known murderer would either be killed in self-defense or in defense of a victim, or one which goes to an arbiter willingly would simply stop being served by all business and services in the area, causing them to become a social pariah or just move somewhere else. In short, I suppose the best estimate would be compensating the affected parties and "social death"._


----------



## playtime

SassyIrishLass said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure you are female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftists change day to day
Click to expand...


that's all you got sweety.... that's all you got.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer the question.   No more red herrings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's easy to answer. Just one. But "pro-abort"? Really? You guys are following the statist playbook to a tee. Fucking hypocrites.
Click to expand...


. . . Says the guy currently counting those same statists he's trying to paint US as being like as his allies right now.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would like to stop murder...but since we can’t, let’s allow it. see how dumb your argument is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you did not answer my question, and it has already been demonstrated that you can not stop abortions, I assume that you are posting here because you want to make general condemnations. Ok. Now, that won't change anything, but does it make you feel belter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess to you it is surprising that I don’t like murder. Why do you?  Are you the grandson of Himmler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you going to do about it?
Click to expand...

Very simple Himmler’s grandson. Outlaw it. Any “doctor “ who performs one has committed murder.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't know any "proaborts".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's interested in how the voices in your head define things.
Click to expand...


Cec., it has become clear after your last 20 rants that you have decided to troll me, and I am simply not interested. Find someone whose emotions you can manipulate..


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.
Click to expand...


No, it's a copout.  "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."

Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".


----------



## gipper

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure you are female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you sure you think that was a burn?
Click to expand...

Not really.


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to stop murder...but since we can’t, let’s allow it. see how dumb your argument is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you did not answer my question, and it has already been demonstrated that you can not stop abortions, I assume that you are posting here because you want to make general condemnations. Ok. Now, that won't change anything, but does it make you feel belter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess to you it is surprising that I don’t like murder. Why do you?  Are you the grandson of Himmler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you going to do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple Himmler’s grandson. Outlaw it. Any “doctor “ who performs one has committed murder.
Click to expand...


then you gots to go after the females too.  please PLEASE make that the motto for 2020.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to stop murder...but since we can’t, let’s allow it. see how dumb your argument is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you did not answer my question, and it has already been demonstrated that you can not stop abortions, I assume that you are posting here because you want to make general condemnations. Ok. Now, that won't change anything, but does it make you feel belter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess to you it is surprising that I don’t like murder. Why do you?  Are you the grandson of Himmler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you going to do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple Himmler’s grandson. Outlaw it. Any “doctor “ who performs one has committed murder.
Click to expand...


So, you are going to outlaw it in states in which you do not live, if the SC overturns Roe? How?


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to stop murder...but since we can’t, let’s allow it. see how dumb your argument is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you did not answer my question, and it has already been demonstrated that you can not stop abortions, I assume that you are posting here because you want to make general condemnations. Ok. Now, that won't change anything, but does it make you feel belter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess to you it is surprising that I don’t like murder. Why do you?  Are you the grandson of Himmler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you going to do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple Himmler’s grandson. Outlaw it. Any “doctor “ who performs one has committed murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are going to outlaw it in states in which you do not live, if the SC overturns Roe? How?
Click to expand...

Oh brother. Murder is illegal in every state last I checked.


----------



## Death Angel

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol..no not really.  & i am a she.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure you are female?
Click to expand...

Is he transginger?


----------



## playtime

gipper said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure you are female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you sure you think that was a burn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.
Click to expand...


sure it was or you wouldn't have had to ask....   i was born female & CHOSE to carry full term & give birth & keep my son.  one simple little click on my profile would have confirmed it.  you didn't even hafta read between any lines - it's there clear as day.

guess you aren't as good as you thought you were, 'eh?


----------



## playtime

Death Angel said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure you are female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is he transginger?
Click to expand...


are YOU?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't know any "proaborts".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's interested in how the voices in your head define things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cec., it has become clear after your last 20 rants that you have decided to troll me, and I am simply not interested. Find someone whose emotions you can manipulate..
Click to expand...



Vandal, it has become clear after every post you have ever made on this message board that you consider any post which disagrees with your horseshit to be "trolling you", because you're "not interested" in ever hearing that the "logic" you proudly tell yourself you have is ridiculous.  Find someone who's as stupid as you to tell your lies to.

I'm planning to continue right ahead with pointing out what a sad, ignorant little liar you are, because I care just as much about whether or not you're "interested" in it as I do with gaining your approval.  Feel free to run away like the little bitch you are, if you like.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you did not answer my question, and it has already been demonstrated that you can not stop abortions, I assume that you are posting here because you want to make general condemnations. Ok. Now, that won't change anything, but does it make you feel belter?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess to you it is surprising that I don’t like murder. Why do you?  Are you the grandson of Himmler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you going to do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple Himmler’s grandson. Outlaw it. Any “doctor “ who performs one has committed murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are going to outlaw it in states in which you do not live, if the SC overturns Roe? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Murder is illegal in every state last I checked.
Click to expand...


I invite you to read this, and try another answer:

Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973

What will you do about abortion?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't know any "proaborts".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's interested in how the voices in your head define things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cec., it has become clear after your last 20 rants that you have decided to troll me, and I am simply not interested. Find someone whose emotions you can manipulate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Vandal, it has become clear after every post you have ever made on this message board that you consider any post which disagrees with your horseshit to be "trolling you", because you're "not interested" in ever hearing that the "logic" you proudly tell yourself you have is ridiculous.  Find someone who's as stupid as you to tell your lies to.
> 
> I'm planning to continue right ahead with pointing out what a sad, ignorant little liar you are, because I care just as much about whether or not you're "interested" in it as I do with gaining your approval.  Feel free to run away like the little bitch you are, if you like.
Click to expand...



Okee-Dokee


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!
> 
> They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.
> 
> They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.
> 
> I'm gonna miss them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless.  Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can.  As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
Click to expand...


You are an atheist and an ego-driven moron who learned how to cherry-pick the Bible and convince himself that meant he knew something.  That would amuse me, if it wasn't so fucking sad.  It's like watching the drunk panhandler on the corner trying to argue physics with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and insisting that he's winning.

What DOES amuse me is that your ego extends to thinking your replies matter to anyone but you.  Did you really imagine that I was posting on this message board because I wanted your attention?  Because I actually thought any reply from you would be worth the fetid breath it took to utter it?  I don't give a rat's ass if you NEVER man up enough to respond, dumbass.  You're just one of the many witless punching bags I'm using to demonstrate how soulless and ridiculous pro-abortion positions are.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess to you it is surprising that I don’t like murder. Why do you?  Are you the grandson of Himmler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you going to do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple Himmler’s grandson. Outlaw it. Any “doctor “ who performs one has committed murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are going to outlaw it in states in which you do not live, if the SC overturns Roe? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Murder is illegal in every state last I checked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to read this, and try another answer:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> What will you do about abortion?
Click to expand...


Well, THAT was a major conversation stopper!


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless.  Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can.  As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> 
> 13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 14 *He gave himself *for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good.
> 
> Titus 2:13-14
> 
> 
> 6 who *gave himself *as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at his appointed time.
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:6
Click to expand...


For some odd reason, leftists seem to think they can learn to quote one Bible verse, and that means they "know the Bible".  It really never occurs to them to question that assumption about a book which contains something like 31,000 verses, not counting the Apocrypha.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.
Click to expand...


Slap whoever told you that you "knew the Bible" based on one verse.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, He didn't.  Jesus sacrificed Himself.  Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.
> 
> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was correct. Jesus  gave His own life willingly.
> 
> 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and *I lay down my life for the sheep. *16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because* I lay down my life*, so that I may take it back again. 18 *No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. *I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
> 
> John 10:14-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not mutually exclusive.   Jesus and the Father are ONE.  This is basic stuff, I can't believe you're even arguing that Jesus did not give His life willingly.  I could post lots more verses for you, if you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People cherry picking the Bible is one of many reasons that I am an atheist, so don't bother.
Click to expand...


I just heard, "I'm an atheist because I can't stand it when other people act like me!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah really. You thought a glob of cells couldn’t possibly look human, but then I enlightened. Thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying that i said it couldn't possibly look 'human'?  oooOOooo  you little liar you.  i said that it's not accurate in its portrayal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very good at reading between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!right - just like you thought i was a male all this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure you are female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftists change day to day
Click to expand...


'Tis true. There are a lot of them who are "sure they're female" about whom no one else is sure of that.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess to you it is surprising that I don’t like murder. Why do you?  Are you the grandson of Himmler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you going to do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple Himmler’s grandson. Outlaw it. Any “doctor “ who performs one has committed murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are going to outlaw it in states in which you do not live, if the SC overturns Roe? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Murder is illegal in every state last I checked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to read this, and try another answer:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> What will you do about abortion?
Click to expand...

Apparently you don’t know how the nation’s court system works.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pro abortionists don't seem to realize that they are fervently making the argument that a child isn't a child inside _or_ outside of the womb.

I call that arguing yourself into a corner. Or being an idiot... or intentionally obtuse.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you going to do about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple Himmler’s grandson. Outlaw it. Any “doctor “ who performs one has committed murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are going to outlaw it in states in which you do not live, if the SC overturns Roe? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Murder is illegal in every state last I checked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to read this, and try another answer:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> What will you do about abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don’t know how the nation’s court system works.
Click to expand...


Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution. And, yes, I know exactly how the court system works. In fact, I know the difference  between the legal definitions of "murder" and "abortion", which you obviously do not. I know that there is not even a federal crime against murder. I know that the only way that you could possibly make even a small dent in abortion in the USA, you would have to get a constitutional amendment approved outlawing it as a federal crime, OR, convince 50 states to separately change their legal definition of "murder" in include "abortion". 

Don't give up your day job to practice law, pal.


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a group of cells...at ten weeks.
> 
> Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?
> View attachment 262858
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except, your pic is dramatically enlarged & is not accurate...  it's about the size of a strawberry & completely not viable on its own.
Click to expand...


You added ‘on its own’ that is not a criteria for being viable maybe except for pro-aborts who twist the language.


----------



## Leo123

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
> 
> that's a simple yes or no.  i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible._
> 
> _The act is therefor unethical._
> 
> _What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to think ethics are written in stone.  if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?
> 
> next.
Click to expand...


It’s ‘unethical’ to have a child and  not to be able to feed that child because you didn’t plan for it instead you want to take food from other people’s children.


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple Himmler’s grandson. Outlaw it. Any “doctor “ who performs one has committed murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are going to outlaw it in states in which you do not live, if the SC overturns Roe? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Murder is illegal in every state last I checked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to read this, and try another answer:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> What will you do about abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don’t know how the nation’s court system works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution.
Click to expand...


They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.


----------



## NotYourBody

Vandalshandle said:


> But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!



My mama always said...A kicked dog will holler.


----------



## NotYourBody

Death Angel said:


> Is he transginger?



No. You said that was me, remember? Try to keep up.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Let's see what Ginsburg has to say about the issue:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg Just Sized Up Mike Pence for Exactly What He Is

Poor Pence. All dressed up to go to church, but no services being held in the Supreme Court Building….


----------



## Borillar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that by making abortion illegal it will somehow go away?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion isn't safe, you can die from it. Also have complications that can affect a woman for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can die or have complications from childbirth too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying, "Smoking isn't bad, because you can get lung cancer and die just from living in a big city."
Click to expand...

It has been found that there is less morbidity associated with legally induced abortion than there is with childbirth by a factor of 14. If abortion is equivalent to smoking to you, then childbirth is like wrapping your lips around an exhaust pipe.

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States.  - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . . . Says the guy standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those same leftists right now.
Click to expand...


I can't help it if you guys keep changing sides.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system."
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  it's very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, thank you for that declaration of "scientific fact" from the cutting edge of 1910 or so.  Also, these new-fangled automobile things are just a fad, and will never catch on.
Click to expand...


It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.


----------



## Leo123

dblack said:


> It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.



How is it part of the mother's body when the expressed purpose is to eject it when fully developed?   BTW most abortions are done on blacks.   Margaret Sanger would be proud.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system."
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  it's very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, thank you for that declaration of "scientific fact" from the cutting edge of 1910 or so.  Also, these new-fangled automobile things are just a fad, and will never catch on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.
Click to expand...


lolololol. So a full-term baby, no different than a newborn, who is minutes away from delivery is nothing but a body part and a non-person?  A preborn who is OLDER than premature babies born at 24 weeks?    I mean, if that's your position, you can't get any more ignorant, idiotic and morally bankrupt than that.  That means that you support infanticide, since full-term babies are no different than newborns.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a copout.  "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."
> 
> Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".
Click to expand...


Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.

I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Leo123 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it part of the mother's body when the expressed purpose is to eject it when fully developed?   BTW most abortions are done on blacks.   Margaret Sanger would be proud.
Click to expand...


Oh! Bringing up Margarete Sanger again! Understandable, I guess. She has only been dead for 53 years!


----------



## Leo123

dblack said:


> Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.



I think human society has a vested interest in not only a woman's womb but a man's semen.   After all, that is how we continue the species into the future.   Government is an extension of human society but should never force it's way into anyone's body.   In the past, more draconian sexual morality was imposed by society via Judeo Christian morals and values in the U.S.  Marriage was uplifted and motherhood was respected and celebrated.    



> I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.



The desperation of an unwanted pregnancy is earned and warranted by the woman, UNLESS she is 'raped' (guy ejaculates in vagina then basically abandons the woman) which is a heinous crime and the same as rape IMO.  Believe it or not, I think that our kids are being taught ignorance of human sexuality.   That is, they are being taught to use contraceptives as if that is going to somehow stem the tide of unwanted pregnancies.   With the number of abortions and medicinal abortions occurring one would think that just maybe contraceptives aren't working all that well.   Maybe, just maybe, the BEST contraceptive is abstinence?   No penis in vagina, no conception, no pregnancy, no fetus, no abortion needed.


----------



## BWK

Death Angel said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my review of this thread - *NotYourBody* Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
> So far....no takers. So much Winning!
> 
> 
> 
> You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
> 
> So far … no takers … and we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+  gestational fetus is not a baby.................  only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............
> 
> that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First trimester *development* of embryo/*fetus*. A *developing baby* is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of *pregnancy*. ... During the third month of *pregnancy*, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

LOl! You haven't schooled anyone about anything from this whole thread.


----------



## BWK

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a copout.  "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."
> 
> Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.
> 
> I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.
Click to expand...

That's just it. Their religion doesn't want you owning your own bodies, and the radicals use that religion as the excuse to try and control women. Once you do that, you've got them where you want them. They're to be rounded up at the pleasure of the male to be used as they like then. This scenario would play out in real time if you let religion take control. 

We see it as fiction right now, but it's actually a work in progress by the radical religious Right;    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAXy_NyUN6k


----------



## BWK

sealybobo said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.
> 
> James 4:17
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.
> 
> You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.
> 
> It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.
> 
> All of which are extremely unconstitutional.
> 
> Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.
> 
> Stop taking that same right from everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, actually. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states lawmakers cannot vote on laws based on their religious convictions so long as they do not break the tenets of the Constitution. There IS no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution and so, as you well know, lawmakers are ABSOLUTELY allowed to oppose ANYTHING or endorse ANYTHING based on religious belief. The people ELECT them. If the people don't like it, kick them out of office and they won't make laws. That's how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you vote on it, you are attempting to  break that wall between church and state;
> 
> *Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[1]*
> 
> You want to practice anti-abortion? Knock yourself out. But the Constitution clearly states there will be "no law respecting an establishment of religion." And since there are no known scientific conclusions, just theories about when life begins, the radical Right is pushing their religious belief into law by using make believe conclusions not established as fact.
> 
> The Constitution never signed us up to exercise your religious beliefs through law. That would be akin to religious bondage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve been trying to get them to admit it. This whole life is precious thing is their religion. Keep your religion out of my uterus.
> 
> Human life is not that precious you can’t abort it at 12 weeks. Republicans want to make it zero weeks so don’t give in to this 8 week cut off. Most women don’t even know they have a seed in them until after 8 weeks.
Click to expand...

Yea, everyone knows the game. There is no giving into anything. What they want is insanity. These folks have a serious mental condition.


----------



## BWK

sealybobo said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn’t that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> That literally sickens me.  That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.
> 
> Your way is leading us to atrocities.
> 
> Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.
> 
> You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the life start again? 2073 posts and that question was never answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as that sperm penetrates the egg a woman is a murderer if she takes the morning after pill. Murder.
Click to expand...

These folks are totally mental.


----------



## Leo123

Vandalshandle said:


> Oh! Bringing up Margarete Sanger again! Understandable, I guess. She has only been dead for 53 years!



Sanger may be dead but her Eugenics lives on in Planned Parenthood.   'Planned Parenthood' now THAT is a real misnomer!!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Leo123 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think human society has a vested interest in not only a woman's womb but a man's semen.   After all, that is how we continue the species into the future.   Government is an extension of human society but should never force it's way into anyone's body.   In the past, more draconian sexual morality was imposed by society via Judeo Christian morals and values in the U.S.  Marriage was uplifted and motherhood was respected and celebrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desperation of an unwanted pregnancy is earned and warranted by the woman, UNLESS she is 'raped' (guy ejaculates in vagina then basically abandons the woman) which is a heinous crime and the same as rape IMO.  Believe it or not, I think that our kids are being taught ignorance of human sexuality.   That is, they are being taught to use contraceptives as if that is going to somehow stem the tide of unwanted pregnancies.   With the number of abortions and medicinal abortions occurring one would think that just maybe contraceptives aren't working all that well.   Maybe, just maybe, the BEST contraceptive is abstinence?   No penis in vagina, no conception, no pregnancy, no fetus, no abortion needed.
Click to expand...


Abortions peaked at 1.6 million in 1990, down to 926,000 in 2014, attributed to increased availability of contraceptives. teen pregnancies have dropped from 32.5% of abortions to 12% of abortions. The statistics do not back up your contention.

Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> That literally sickens me.  That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.
> 
> Your way is leading us to atrocities.
> 
> Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.
> 
> You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the life start again? 2073 posts and that question was never answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as that sperm penetrates the egg a woman is a murderer if she takes the morning after pill. Murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These folks are totally mental.
Click to expand...


 Projecting again, huh?

Someone on your side just said a *full-term preborn baby*  (no different than a newborn) was a non-person, just a body part of the mother. Babies that are months OLDER than premies outside the womb.  And you think WE'RE mental?   You're hilarious.  Your projecting is off the charts.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Leo123 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh! Bringing up Margarete Sanger again! Understandable, I guess. She has only been dead for 53 years!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanger may be dead but her Eugenics lives on in Planned Parenthood.   'Planned Parenthood' now THAT is a real misnomer!!
Click to expand...


Well, if it makes any difference to you at all, I, personally, have no problem with the government defunding Planned Parenthood. They have become too radioactive to the Right. I am sure that they could be sustained through private funding. Besides, it hurts me that it is such an embarrassment to the president, who promised to cut them off without a cent right away. It is like Mexico paying for the wall, and locking Hillary up. One can only take so much humiliation.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well._
> 
> _By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property._
> 
> _To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered._
> 
> _TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but why not?  once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.
> 
> but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.
> 
> do you not care?  nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *y'all aren't really 'pro life'  you are only  pro birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder._
> 
> _Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pffffft>   such drivel.   don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage.  will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone._
> 
> _My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor poor you.   do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?
Click to expand...


How much should her wants matter when she won’t even take the right measures to prevent what she _doesn’t_ want?


----------



## SweetSue92

Mac1958 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're building a straw man, dipshit. Give it a rest
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.
> 
> How dare me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.
> 
> We all know your game, fence sitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.
> 
> If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.
> 
> Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic
> 
> Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like your responses.
> 
> You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.
> 
> I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.
> 
> You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
> .
Click to expand...


"Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".

Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.


----------



## SweetSue92

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral high ground  in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf are you babbling about?  make some sense & i'll answer you.
Click to expand...


You got her, Pumpkin. Whenever she is had entirely, she cries and whines about the fact that you are "babbling"....or just whines in general.

She's too old for this behavior but the hardheaded Leftists never really grow up. They get old but inside remain immature and really annoying 13 year olds


----------



## SweetSue92

playtime said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her._
> 
> _She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property._
> 
> _This makes it unethical._
> 
> _Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property.  why do you feel entitled to lock up  her property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway._
> 
> _Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it._
> 
> _Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading._
> 
> _All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what should happen to females that try to abort if roe v wade is overturned?
Click to expand...


Astounding. She gets soundly defeated and just dodges to the dumbest questions. Not even the good sense to slink away.

Kudos Pumpkin Row. I have much respect for those trained in Logic, Philosophy, Ethics and etc.


----------



## Mac1958

SweetSue92 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.
> 
> How dare me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.
> 
> We all know your game, fence sitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.
> 
> If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.
> 
> Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic
> 
> Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like your responses.
> 
> You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.
> 
> I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.
> 
> You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".
> 
> Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.
Click to expand...

"Sacred" is a term used often by the Pro Lifers, not me.  Yes, it usually has religious connotation, and if a person deems life to be "sacred", their "faith" is on very shaky ground when they start making exceptions for rape and incest.  Therefore, they should be just fine with the Alabama law.

Come to think of it, I'd think so should someone who thinks innocent life is "invaluably precious".
.


----------



## Death Angel

Mac1958 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.
> 
> We all know your game, fence sitter
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.
> 
> If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.
> 
> Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic
> 
> Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like your responses.
> 
> You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.
> 
> I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.
> 
> You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".
> 
> Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sacred" is a term used often by the Pro Lifers, not me.  Yes, it usually has religious connotation, and if a person deems life to be "sacred", their "faith" is on very shaky ground when they start making exceptions for rape and incest.  Therefore, they should be just fine with the Alabama law.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'd think so should someone who thinks innocent life is "invaluably precious".
> .
Click to expand...

Yes, "sacred" does apply so far as God's  purpose for Man. And you are right about the Alabama law, though I get the impression you dont agree with it.

*connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration*


----------



## SweetSue92

Mac1958 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.
> 
> We all know your game, fence sitter
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.
> 
> If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.
> 
> Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic
> 
> Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like your responses.
> 
> You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.
> 
> I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.
> 
> You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".
> 
> Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sacred" is a term used often by the Pro Lifers, not me.  Yes, it usually has religious connotation, and if a person deems life to be "sacred", their "faith" is on very shaky ground when they start making exceptions for rape and incest.  Therefore, they should be just fine with the Alabama law.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'd think so should someone who thinks innocent life is "invaluably precious".
> .
Click to expand...


God is sacred and He is the Author of Life. Life has a sacred purpose. We are on shaky ground when we say that all life is sacred...that is, worthy of veneration and WORSHIP. Because some people make horrid choices that are far from something we should "worship".There is punishment for the wicked. IOW life is not SO sacred that no punishment is meted out for those who inflict evil on others.


----------



## Mac1958

SweetSue92 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.
> 
> If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.
> 
> Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic
> 
> Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like your responses.
> 
> You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.
> 
> I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.
> 
> You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".
> 
> Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sacred" is a term used often by the Pro Lifers, not me.  Yes, it usually has religious connotation, and if a person deems life to be "sacred", their "faith" is on very shaky ground when they start making exceptions for rape and incest.  Therefore, they should be just fine with the Alabama law.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'd think so should someone who thinks innocent life is "invaluably precious".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is sacred and He is the Author of Life. Life has a sacred purpose. We are on shaky ground when we say that all life is sacred...that is, worthy of veneration and WORSHIP. Because some people make horrid choices that are far from something we should "worship".There is punishment for the wicked. IOW life is not SO sacred that no punishment is meted out for those who inflict evil on others.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about innocent life.
.


----------



## SweetSue92

Mac1958 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.
> 
> Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic
> 
> Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?
> 
> 
> 
> I like your responses.
> 
> You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.
> 
> I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.
> 
> You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".
> 
> Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sacred" is a term used often by the Pro Lifers, not me.  Yes, it usually has religious connotation, and if a person deems life to be "sacred", their "faith" is on very shaky ground when they start making exceptions for rape and incest.  Therefore, they should be just fine with the Alabama law.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'd think so should someone who thinks innocent life is "invaluably precious".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is sacred and He is the Author of Life. Life has a sacred purpose. We are on shaky ground when we say that all life is sacred...that is, worthy of veneration and WORSHIP. Because some people make horrid choices that are far from something we should "worship".There is punishment for the wicked. IOW life is not SO sacred that no punishment is meted out for those who inflict evil on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about innocent life.
> .
Click to expand...


You do not get more innocent than life in the womb. There is not a question about that. They are "invaluably precious". And if you're asking ME about my personal opinion: I do not think the innocent baby should suffer the death penalty because his or her father was a rapist or committed incest. I don't think that's a just punishment. However I do see the judicial "sticky wicket" there and can see if the SC ruled abortion unlawful EXCEPT in the cases of rape or incest. I don't personally agree with it but it would be a start.


----------



## NotYourBody

BWK said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want to make it zero weeks so don’t give in to this 8 week cut off. Most women don’t even know they have a seed in them until after 8 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, everyone knows the game. There is no giving into anything. What they want is insanity. These folks have a serious mental condition.
Click to expand...


This is how I've always viewed these anti-abortion wingnuts. You know, the loons who want to force lifetime physical changes to a woman's body because they're some kind of weird control freaks.

Completely and totally insane. Whacked out of their minds. They'll never have a say over what happens in my uterus and, realistically, they don't have that ability.

They need mental help. They need to find a hobby. They need to find ways to be happier in their own lives so they can stop foaming at the mouth over these things they can't control about my life.

It's truly bizarre.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are going to outlaw it in states in which you do not live, if the SC overturns Roe? How?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother. Murder is illegal in every state last I checked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to read this, and try another answer:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> What will you do about abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don’t know how the nation’s court system works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.
Click to expand...


"Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?  Just like metabolizing food or processing oxygen, is it?  Spare me the euphemisms and dodges.  And don't even start with the "forcing women to bear children", unless you have evidence that someone is locking them in pens like milk cows at a dairy and impregnating them against their will.

"Oh my God, how CRUEL of you to expect that I should refrain from killing a child I made through my own choices!  You monster!"

Yes, I'm sure the public will tire of the "inhumanity" of denying people the right to kill children . . . just as soon as you produce an argument that doesn't depend on lies and shocking scientific ignorance.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Borillar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion isn't safe, you can die from it. Also have complications that can affect a woman for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can die or have complications from childbirth too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying, "Smoking isn't bad, because you can get lung cancer and die just from living in a big city."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been found that there is less morbidity associated with legally induced abortion than there is with childbirth by a factor of 14. If abortion is equivalent to smoking to you, then childbirth is like wrapping your lips around an exhaust pipe.
> 
> The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States.  - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...




Borillar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion isn't safe, you can die from it. Also have complications that can affect a woman for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can die or have complications from childbirth too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying, "Smoking isn't bad, because you can get lung cancer and die just from living in a big city."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been found that there is less morbidity associated with legally induced abortion than there is with childbirth by a factor of 14. If abortion is equivalent to smoking to you, then childbirth is like wrapping your lips around an exhaust pipe.
> 
> The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States.  - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...


You really do just Google for what you want to hear and run with the first headline that reinforces your worldview, don't you?

Your study compares maternal mortality and abortion mortality statistics from the CDC; but the CDC themselves have said that the two are not comparable, They are derived by completely different methods, and measure completely different things.  The method used to calculate maternal mortality rates depends on not only a completely different set of criteria, but one which is mathematically guaranteed to inflate the mortality rate over the one used to calculate abortion mortality.

Furthermore, the overall maternal mortality rate doesn't differentiate at all in regards to stage of gestation.  55% of maternal deaths occur in the first six weeks of pregnancy, from factors which are not at all a danger to a woman entering her second trimester (ectopic pregnancy, for example, is the leading cause of first trimester maternal death).  An abortion cannot eliminate a risk which has already passed.  A much more reasonable comparison would be the risk of abortion versus the risk of CONTINUING the pregnancy, not the risk throughout the pregnancy.

Further-furthermore, the data on abortion mortality is wildly inaccurate.  How the cause of death is listed on official records is up to the discretion of the physician or coroner, who may - and often does - simply report it as "sepsis" or "hemorrhage" or whatever without bothering to mention that the condition was caused by an abortion, particularly if the woman was concealing the abortion from family and friends.  Deaths due to childbirth or complications of pregnancy, on the other hand, are much more likely to be counted as such, since there's no underlying reason not to.  And let's not forget that some deaths due to abortion are reported as pregnancy-related deaths, which can throw the statistics off even more.

Also, abortion mortality rates only reflect death from the procedure itself, not longer-term problems.  That's like measuring smoking deaths by only counting people who die within 24 hours of lighting their cigarette.  We know that abortion is associated with an increased rate of long-term maternal death.  Just because you didn't hemorrhage and die right after the abortion was performed does not mean you aren't more likely to develop life-threatening health complications down the road due to the fact that you had an abortion.  Personally, I could have told you that thirty years ago, when I worked in a fertility clinic and a prospective patient came in, wanting help with carrying a baby to term because she'd had three abortions and now she kept miscarrying.  The doctor told me bluntly back then that abortion screws up your reproductive system's normal functioning.

Studies which attempt to go deeper and examine ALL relevant data, rather than just what's written on the death certificate, indicate that abortion provides significantly higher mortality rates.  I don't believe they all have Internet links, but I'll be happy to give you the information if you want to look them up old-school.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . . . Says the guy standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those same leftists right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help it if you guys keep changing sides.
Click to expand...


No, but you can help being willfully obtuse and thinking the entire world must be changing, rather than just you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system."
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  it's very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, thank you for that declaration of "scientific fact" from the cutting edge of 1910 or so.  Also, these new-fangled automobile things are just a fad, and will never catch on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.
Click to expand...


Once again, thank you for that definitive assertion of cutting-edge 1910 "science", not to mention the "English For Morons" word definition.  I'm quite sure that THIS time, when you tell us that your uneducated perceptions are reality, we'll just blindly let you dictate the debate parameters, despite having mocked your lack of basic biology the last 300 or so times you laughably tried to declare that every medical advance of the 20th century in that field was non-existent simply because it didn't fit what you wanted.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a copout.  "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."
> 
> Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.
> 
> I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.
Click to expand...


Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes?  Because that's what you're asking:  for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that.  I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.

You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously.  Really let that sink in for a minute.  

And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Borillar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously making the argument that, because it won't make it all go away, we shouldn't make it illegal?
> 
> Okay then, RAPE should be legal because, what the heck, people will rape anyway.
> 
> Dumb argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you keep abortion legal you keep it safe. Truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion isn't safe, you can die from it. Also have complications that can affect a woman for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can die or have complications from childbirth too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying, "Smoking isn't bad, because you can get lung cancer and die just from living in a big city."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been found that there is less morbidity associated with legally induced abortion than there is with childbirth by a factor of 14. If abortion is equivalent to smoking to you, then childbirth is like wrapping your lips around an exhaust pipe.
> 
> The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States.  - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...


Interesting how you utterly ignored the vast majority of my post, selected one sentence to address, and then blankly repeated your assertion as fact without even pretending to acknowledge the arguments against it.  It's almost as though your agenda trumps any silliness like facts or evidence or logic or mathematics.  I guess it's a good thing that people with no morals or conscience don't have to worry about being ashamed when they're blatantly dishonest in public, right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities*
> May 26th, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK, NY—Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un arrived at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices Friday on a diplomatic mission to learn from the abortion provider’s legendary methods of manipulating the media and covering up human rights atrocities, sources confirmed.
> 
> “In North Korea, we are usually the best at everything,” the ruthless dictator told reporters outside the organization’s offices. “But we have to admit that Planned Parenthood is far better than even the great Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when it comes to spinning, distorting, and pulling strings to cover up their daily trampling of human rights.”
> 
> “We’re here to learn from the experts,” he added.
> 
> The North Korean delegate reportedly met with leaders at Planned Parenthood, where a panel of public relations professionals demonstrated the organization’s advanced methods of squashing any clear evidence of its brutal, callous slaughtering of human babies the moment it arises.
> 
> “So you just get a judge to pull all the damning videos right away, and charge those trying to expose you with felonies? Amazing. We don’t even have that kind of power over the media back in Pyongyang.”
> 
> At publishing time, Planned Parenthood spokespeople had shown an impressed Kim Jong-un the organization’s direct hotline to various media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Snopes.com, whom they could phone in a moment’s notice to drum up a defense for any leaked videos of their barbaric practices."
> Kim Jong-Un Consults With Planned Parenthood To Learn How To Cover Up Atrocities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the same NK piglet that trump loves long time?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to be so very good at reducing you Leftists to clearly false and insipid posts.
> 
> 
> 
> But.....I have had a great deal of practice.......
Click to expand...


Well, and no insult to you, but it's not exactly difficult to do, since leftism rather requires dishonesty and insipidness.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise in STD’s is noteworthy.  Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?
> 
> U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.
> 
> For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".
> 
> I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is Planned Parenthoods are rare in rural red states. Usually located in inner city areas...why is that I wonder?
Click to expand...


Simple, I am amazed you need to adj.  Red states have passed laws making it extremely hard for clinics to operate.  Most have had to close.  Those that remain open are more likely to in urban areas where they can get admitting priveledges.  If you are infering it is a racist plot to decimate the black population in cities, that is an urban legend based on a few quotes taken out of context.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neat.
> 
> Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 262039
> 
> View attachment 262040
> 
> View attachment 262042
> 
> 
> Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report
> 
> 
> 
> And race has what to with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to show a correlation and causal effect as a result of politics and subsequent policy. And increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Not so easy to with race.
> 
> For example the effects of shutting down Planned Parenthood Clinics in poor rural red states means a loss of available services that provided STD screening and treatment and education in areas where evidence based sexual education is frowned upon.  Red state politicians still spout the old canards about how abortion causes cancer and a woman who is raped can't get pregnant because "the juices aren't flowing".
> 
> I suspect it makes you feel better to blame it on race though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is Planned Parenthoods are rare in rural red states. Usually located in inner city areas...why is that I wonder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, I am amazed you need to adj.  Red states have passed laws making it extremely hard for clinics to operate.  Most have had to close.  Those that remain open are more likely to in urban areas where they can get admitting priveledges.  If you are infering it is a racist plot to decimate the black population in cities, that is an urban legend based on a few quotes taken out of context.
Click to expand...


Yep I read today Missouri will likely be abortion clinic free this Friday

Winning


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.
> 
> Your way is leading us to atrocities.
> 
> Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.
> 
> You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the life start again? 2073 posts and that question was never answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as that sperm penetrates the egg a woman is a murderer if she takes the morning after pill. Murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These folks are totally mental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting again, huh?
> 
> Someone on your side just said a *full-term preborn baby*  (no different than a newborn) was a non-person, just a body part of the mother. Babies that are months OLDER than premies outside the womb.  And you think WE'RE mental?   You're hilarious.  Your projecting is off the charts.
Click to expand...

I don't think it, I know it. You have been on this thread the whole time playing  God. For the life of me I have been asking myself how come this person missed his or her flight on Hale- Bopp?


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't said that it isn't.  You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.
> 
> If you don't want to answer it, fine.  I'm certainly used to that here.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.
> 
> Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic
> 
> Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like your responses.
> 
> You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.
> 
> I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.
> 
> You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".
> 
> Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sacred" is a term used often by the Pro Lifers, not me.  Yes, it usually has religious connotation, and if a person deems life to be "sacred", their "faith" is on very shaky ground when they start making exceptions for rape and incest.  Therefore, they should be just fine with the Alabama law.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'd think so should someone who thinks innocent life is "invaluably precious".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is sacred and He is the Author of Life. Life has a sacred purpose. We are on shaky ground when we say that all life is sacred...that is, worthy of veneration and WORSHIP. Because some people make horrid choices that are far from something we should "worship".There is punishment for the wicked. IOW life is not SO sacred that no punishment is meted out for those who inflict evil on others.
Click to expand...

And the "evil" is for these Right-wing religious nuts to come on here and pretend to play God, making decisions for the rest of us. It is the epitome of evil.


----------



## toobfreak

SweetSue92 said:


> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?




Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.  

The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.

That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> I don't think it, I know it. You have been on this thread the whole time playing  God. For the life of me I have been asking myself how come this person missed his or her flight on Hale- Bopp?



The people "Playing God" are those of you killing an innocent human being, stealing the life of another as if you have the moral authority to do so. YOU ARE NOT GOD, you don't have the right to take an innocent life.

Any more projecting you want to do?  In just about every one of your posts, you project, it's like dealing with a 5 year old.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> Completely and totally insane. Whacked out of their minds.
> 
> It's truly bizarre.



^ Says the person who supports infanticide.  Turn your words right back on yourself, but add morally bankrupt to them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

toobfreak said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.
> 
> The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.
> 
> That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.
Click to expand...


We've been saying that for a while now, actually.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Cecilie1200 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.
> 
> The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.
> 
> That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
Click to expand...


It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also


----------



## Leo123

SassyIrishLass said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.
> 
> The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.
> 
> That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
Click to expand...


left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be 'contracepted' or killed by the sucker women they swoon.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Leo123 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.
> 
> The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.
> 
> That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be contracepted or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
Click to expand...


One of the main reasons I married my husband was his wanting children and his concern for all children. He's a wonderful father...I chose well.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Leo123 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.
> 
> The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.
> 
> That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be 'contracepted' or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
Click to expand...


That's what this thread needs. CLASS!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.
> 
> The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.
> 
> That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be 'contracepted' or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what this thread needs. CLASS!
Click to expand...


You were one of my targets. Fool


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.
> 
> The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.
> 
> That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
Click to expand...


Pretty much either amuses me or makes me weep for the state of humanity watching any leftist trying to make a coherent, rational argument on any subject.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.
> 
> The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.
> 
> But again. Not your body.
> 
> Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.
> 
> The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.
> 
> That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be contracepted or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the main reasons I married my husband was his wanting children and his concern for all children. He's a wonderful father...I chose well.
Click to expand...


One of the reasons my husband married me was that he trusted me 100% to never want to abort his child, and to never want to make decisions about our children without him.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Cecilie1200 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear someone finally say it, a woman no less.
> 
> The baby is IN your body.  The baby is not PART of your body.
> 
> That's why they call it CARRYING a baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be contracepted or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the main reasons I married my husband was his wanting children and his concern for all children. He's a wonderful father...I chose well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons my husband married me was that he trusted me 100% to never want to abort his child, and to never want to make decisions about our children without him.
Click to expand...


Excellent point. A mother's love is special...a daddy's love is simply awesome


----------



## NotYourBody

SassyIrishLass said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be contracepted or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the main reasons I married my husband was his wanting children and his concern for all children. He's a wonderful father...I chose well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons my husband married me was that he trusted me 100% to never want to abort his child, and to never want to make decisions about our children without him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point. A mother's love is special...a daddy's love is simply awesome
Click to expand...


I hope someday you all can figure out how to be happy with your wonderful husbands instead of fretting and bawling over what's happening inside some other woman's uterus.

But, sadly for you, I doubt you are capable.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been saying that for a while now, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be contracepted or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the main reasons I married my husband was his wanting children and his concern for all children. He's a wonderful father...I chose well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons my husband married me was that he trusted me 100% to never want to abort his child, and to never want to make decisions about our children without him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point. A mother's love is special...a daddy's love is simply awesome
Click to expand...


And marriage requires the ability to trust, which requires getting to know the person beyond your chemical reaction to him/her.


----------



## buttercup

Leo123 said:


> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be 'contracepted' or killed by the sucker women they swoon.



That's why many proabort men want abortion-on-demand. It completely absolves them of responsibility for the life they helped to create. It allows the player type guys to treat women like objects and not be accountable.

You are absolutely right that those women are suckers (to say it bluntly... many are lost and naive) which just goes to show that abortion is actually a symptom of a misguided and sick society.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

buttercup said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be 'contracepted' or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why many proabort men want abortion-on-demand. It completely absolves them of responsibility for the life they helped to create. It allows the player type guys to treat women like objects and not be accountable.
> 
> You are absolutely right that those women are suckers (to say it bluntly... many are lost and naive) which just goes to show that abortion is actually a symptom of a misguided and sick society.
Click to expand...


Well any woman sleeping with a left tard male is either stupid or desperate


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be 'contracepted' or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why many proabort men want abortion-on-demand. It completely absolves them of responsibility for the life they helped to create. It allows the player type guys to treat women like objects and not be accountable.
> 
> You are absolutely right that those women are suckers (to say it bluntly... many are lost and naive) which just goes to show that abortion is actually a symptom of a misguided and sick society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well any woman sleeping with a left tard male is either stupid or desperate
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've never understood the attraction of leftist "men".  Might as well just go all-out and be a lesbian.  Same difference.


----------



## buttercup

SassyIrishLass said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be 'contracepted' or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why many proabort men want abortion-on-demand. It completely absolves them of responsibility for the life they helped to create. It allows the player type guys to treat women like objects and not be accountable.
> 
> You are absolutely right that those women are suckers (to say it bluntly... many are lost and naive) which just goes to show that abortion is actually a symptom of a misguided and sick society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well any woman sleeping with a left tard male is either stupid or desperate
Click to expand...


Not all lefties are for abortion though. It's true that _most _are. But as for this topic overall, I don't think it's a left/right thing.   In fact, I think that probably hinders the pro-life cause, because it sends the message that it's only a conservative or christian thing, when in reality ANYONE who values innocent human life should be pro-life.   And contrary to what the proaborts here think, there are a growing number of 'non-traditional' pro-lifers.


----------



## PoliticalChic

*'CBS OFFERS PROPAGANDA PLATFORM FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD*


CBS This Morning” hosts provided an uncritical platform for Planned Parenthood’s Leana Wen to spread pro-abortion talking points on the show Wednesday.

Hosts prompted Wen to reiterate favorite claims from the abortion giant — such as the debunked talking point that it’s a primarily a health care provider...


 King then asked her to reiterate a favorite Planned Parenthood talking point: “Planned Parenthood is more than just abortions. I think people need to understand that, too.”

 Her repeated claim that abortion is just a small fraction of what happens at Planned Parenthood has been thoroughly debunked by various sources including The Washington Post. The hosts didn’t offer any pushback."
CBS Offers Propaganda Platform For Planned Parenthood





Amazing.....in such a short interview, Wen got in almost as many lies as the pro-killing folks in this huuuuuuugggge thread.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> *'CBS OFFERS PROPAGANDA PLATFORM FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD*
> 
> 
> CBS This Morning” hosts provided an uncritical platform for Planned Parenthood’s Leana Wen to spread pro-abortion talking points on the show Wednesday.
> 
> Hosts prompted Wen to reiterate favorite claims from the abortion giant — such as the debunked talking point that it’s a primarily a health care provider...
> 
> 
> King then asked her to reiterate a favorite Planned Parenthood talking point: “Planned Parenthood is more than just abortions. I think people need to understand that, too.”
> 
> Her repeated claim that abortion is just a small fraction of what happens at Planned Parenthood has been thoroughly debunked by various sources including The Washington Post. The hosts didn’t offer any pushback."
> CBS Offers Propaganda Platform For Planned Parenthood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing.....in such a short interview, Wen got in almost as many lies as the pro-killing folks in this huuuuuuugggge thread.



Well, she has a LOT more practice.  That's why she's lying professionally.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Cecilie1200 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *'CBS OFFERS PROPAGANDA PLATFORM FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD*
> 
> 
> CBS This Morning” hosts provided an uncritical platform for Planned Parenthood’s Leana Wen to spread pro-abortion talking points on the show Wednesday.
> 
> Hosts prompted Wen to reiterate favorite claims from the abortion giant — such as the debunked talking point that it’s a primarily a health care provider...
> 
> 
> King then asked her to reiterate a favorite Planned Parenthood talking point: “Planned Parenthood is more than just abortions. I think people need to understand that, too.”
> 
> Her repeated claim that abortion is just a small fraction of what happens at Planned Parenthood has been thoroughly debunked by various sources including The Washington Post. The hosts didn’t offer any pushback."
> CBS Offers Propaganda Platform For Planned Parenthood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing.....in such a short interview, Wen got in almost as many lies as the pro-killing folks in this huuuuuuugggge thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, she has a LOT more practice.  That's why she's lying professionally.
Click to expand...




Hmmmm......I believe there are several pro-killing folks in this thread who might give her a run for her money in the "Lying Marathon."


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *'CBS OFFERS PROPAGANDA PLATFORM FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD*
> 
> 
> CBS This Morning” hosts provided an uncritical platform for Planned Parenthood’s Leana Wen to spread pro-abortion talking points on the show Wednesday.
> 
> Hosts prompted Wen to reiterate favorite claims from the abortion giant — such as the debunked talking point that it’s a primarily a health care provider...
> 
> 
> King then asked her to reiterate a favorite Planned Parenthood talking point: “Planned Parenthood is more than just abortions. I think people need to understand that, too.”
> 
> Her repeated claim that abortion is just a small fraction of what happens at Planned Parenthood has been thoroughly debunked by various sources including The Washington Post. The hosts didn’t offer any pushback."
> CBS Offers Propaganda Platform For Planned Parenthood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing.....in such a short interview, Wen got in almost as many lies as the pro-killing folks in this huuuuuuugggge thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, she has a LOT more practice.  That's why she's lying professionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm......I believe there are several pro-killing folks in this thread who might give her a run for her money in the "Lying Marathon."
Click to expand...


Talented amateurs.


----------



## Vandalshandle

60% of the American public are pro-choice. Those that are not are mostly in the Midwest Bible Belt, and the deep South, which still longs for the good days before the 1860's.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Vandalshandle said:


> 60% of the American public are pro-choice. Those that are not are mostly in the Midwest Bible Belt, and the deep South, which still longs for the good days before the 1860's.


_Appeal to popularity fallacy, genetic fallacy, and strawman fallacy. You legitimately have no arguments, and I already demonstrated that earlier in the thread._


----------



## NotYourBody

Vandalshandle said:


> 60% of the American public are pro-choice. Those that are not are mostly in the Midwest Bible Belt, and the deep South, which still longs for the good days before the 1860's.


I was born and raised smack dab in the buckle of that bible belt and I can assure you what you say is very true.

It appears to be mostly an issue of control, imo. They're looking for any issue at all that will allow them some sense of control over other human beings. Some sense of superiority to give them validation.

The rest are just old bitches that can't keep their noses out of everyone else's business. The kind that like to walk women naked through the street, ringing their special golden whore bell, and hollering out 'Shame. Shame. Shame.'


----------



## Vandalshandle

I spent a couple of years in Tulsa. I lived right next to Oral Roberts University. Nice people, as long as you convinced them that you are a Christian. Otherwise, get the hell out of Oklahoma....


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother. Murder is illegal in every state last I checked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I invite you to read this, and try another answer:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> What will you do about abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don’t know how the nation’s court system works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . . . Says the guy standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those same leftists right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help it if you guys keep changing sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you can help being willfully obtuse and thinking the entire world must be changing, rather than just you.
Click to expand...


Not sure what that's supposed to mean.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system."
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  it's very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, thank you for that declaration of "scientific fact" from the cutting edge of 1910 or so.  Also, these new-fangled automobile things are just a fad, and will never catch on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, thank you for that definitive assertion of cutting-edge 1910 "science", not to mention the "English For Morons" word definition.  I'm quite sure that THIS time, when you tell us that your uneducated perceptions are reality, we'll just blindly let you dictate the debate parameters, despite having mocked your lack of basic biology the last 300 or so times you laughably tried to declare that every medical advance of the 20th century in that field was non-existent simply because it didn't fit what you wanted.
Click to expand...


Is there an emoji for the "jerk-off" gesture? We need one of those. Born is born. Unborn is not. Sorry.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a copout.  "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."
> 
> Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.
> 
> I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes?  Because that's what you're asking:  for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that.  I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.
> 
> You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously.  Really let that sink in for a minute.
> 
> And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?
Click to expand...


"It's different when we do it."


----------



## Leo123

Vandalshandle said:


> That's what this thread needs. CLASS!



Then you should leave.


----------



## buttercup

Pumpkin Row said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 60% of the American public are pro-choice. Those that are not are mostly in the Midwest Bible Belt, and the deep South, which still longs for the good days before the 1860's.
> 
> 
> 
> _Appeal to popularity fallacy, genetic fallacy, and strawman fallacy. You legitimately have no arguments, and I already demonstrated that earlier in the thread._
Click to expand...


All that, not to mention it's false.  Talk about being stuck in past decades.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> Born is born. Unborn is not. Sorry.



Wow, I think I have to re-do my thread review.  I didn't realize you were THAT blind and/or morally bankrupt.   So a full-term baby minutes before delivery who is months OLDER than the premature babies outside the womb, in other words no different than a newborn, is a non-person to you, a piece of garbage that can be butchered no problem?

I'm truly amazed that some of you are THAT blind or evil.  It is baffling to me, and it literally turns my stomach.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> I hope someday you all can figure out how to be happy with your wonderful husbands instead of fretting and bawling over what's happening inside some other woman's uterus.
> 
> But, sadly for you, I doubt you are capable.



I'm sure slaveowners said the same thing when people objected to what they were doing. "Mind your own business, this is MY property."    I guess I have to post this meme on a regular basis around here, since some of you repeat the same inane logical fallacies over and over.


----------



## Death Angel

*The Spark of Life*
"And God Said, Let There be Light"

It's  there for any but the blind to see. I post this for them, not the insane leftist Science Deniers


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NotYourBody said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me when a left tard male tries to argue for abortion. Well for that matter left tard females also
> 
> 
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be contracepted or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the main reasons I married my husband was his wanting children and his concern for all children. He's a wonderful father...I chose well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons my husband married me was that he trusted me 100% to never want to abort his child, and to never want to make decisions about our children without him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point. A mother's love is special...a daddy's love is simply awesome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope someday you all can figure out how to be happy with your wonderful husbands instead of fretting and bawling over what's happening inside some other woman's uterus.
> 
> But, sadly for you, I doubt you are capable.
Click to expand...


I'm very happy with my husband.

With that said I'll continue to fight for the unborn in anyway I can.

You're a miserable lil sock puppet...perhaps even evil. You're definitely ignorant, lack empathy, self centered and selfish. Unable to grasp the concept of personal responsibility. In short you're beneath me and anyone who cares deeply for the most innocent of all. The same holds true for your ignorant self centered cohorts on this thread

Now resume screeching its my body you one trick evil fuck.


----------



## beagle9

SweetSue92 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your responses.
> 
> You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.
> 
> I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.
> 
> You're not going to answer my clear & direct question.  Okay, I get it.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".
> 
> Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sacred" is a term used often by the Pro Lifers, not me.  Yes, it usually has religious connotation, and if a person deems life to be "sacred", their "faith" is on very shaky ground when they start making exceptions for rape and incest.  Therefore, they should be just fine with the Alabama law.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'd think so should someone who thinks innocent life is "invaluably precious".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is sacred and He is the Author of Life. Life has a sacred purpose. We are on shaky ground when we say that all life is sacred...that is, worthy of veneration and WORSHIP. Because some people make horrid choices that are far from something we should "worship".There is punishment for the wicked. IOW life is not SO sacred that no punishment is meted out for those who inflict evil on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about innocent life.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not get more innocent than life in the womb. There is not a question about that. They are "invaluably precious". And if you're asking ME about my personal opinion: I do not think the innocent baby should suffer the death penalty because his or her father was a rapist or committed incest. I don't think that's a just punishment. However I do see the judicial "sticky wicket" there and can see if the SC ruled abortion unlawful EXCEPT in the cases of rape or incest. I don't personally agree with it but it would be a start.
Click to expand...


In the case of rape or incest, there shouldn't be a pregnancy to begin with afterwards right ??

It should be dealt with immediately by implementing the morning after pill in order to prevent such a thing, and this to be either given by the emergency room crew once the victim is taken there in the case of a rape (or) administered by the parents (if told immediately by their young or family member what had happened to them, and for whom their family member unfortunately may have been the victim of either a rape or incest as would be reported on by the victim (or) it is to be self administered by the poor victim's own hand (if chooses this way legally), otherwise if she decides not to wait to see if anything would result from such a thing, otherwise after being raped or was tragically a victim of incest.

She could administer the pill to her ownself in order to stop a potential pregnancy born out of the two herendous tragic situation's found in the acts of rape or incest spoken of above, but do it immediately afterwards (don't wait).

This should be the choice that a victim should be able to make freely over her body, as stated above in concerning the pill, but she should not be allowed later on down the line to just kill her pregnancy with an abortion that which removes a human being from her womb, and especially one that she wrecklacely allowed to take place within her body after knowing what had happened to her in the way that it did happen to her, yet she allows the pregnancy anyway, and then seeks to kill it by way of abortion later ???...Makes no sense to me.

Otherwise why would she allow a pregnancy to develope knowing what had happened to her, in which would have caused that pregnancy to develope if waited to long after she had been raped or was a victim of manipulative incest for more than the time that is allowed to stop a pregnancy from happening ????  Again makes no sense really.

Otherwise she waits on down the line right, and then we find out that it was only to kill the baby at a later date because of her fear or procrastination driven by fear that causes her to wait, otherwise once she decides that she don't want the baby due to the circumstances in which she may not have reported at the time, but of course she should have reported at the time, then the pill she should have taken immediately before a pregnancy could occur in that situation correct ???


Just choose life people, just choose life, and if something ain't right, then do the right thing to make it right, and don't wait if something bad happened to you, just do the right thing somehow, but don't kill your pregnancy beyond a certain point.

A baby forming in the womb (if allowed to develope after a situation like that has taken place, where as the wait created a pregnancy in which of course (the baby is innocent, within the womb afterwards), and is growing.... Next comes the formation of it's little body, hands, eyes, head etc, yet somehow the baby is then slated to be killed by abortion due to the confusion of the individual who is pregnant with the baby along that line somewhere ??

Pathetic and unfortunate is what it all is when these things occur, and especially when one thinks about the whole problem involved.

Just make abortion illegal already people. Good grief. Why endanger ones soul by being dumb about life ?? Right everyone ??


----------



## buttercup

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'm very happy with my husband.
> 
> With that said I'll continue to fight for the unborn in anyway I can.
> 
> You're a miserable lil sock puppet...perhaps even evil. You're definitely ignorant, lack empathy, self centered and selfish. Unable to grasp the concept of personal responsibility. In short you're beneath me and anyone who cares deeply for the most innocent of all. The same holds true for your ignorant self centered cohorts on this thread
> 
> Now resume screeching its my body you one trick evil fuck.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope someday you all can figure out how to be happy with your wonderful husbands instead of fretting and bawling over what's happening inside some other woman's uterus.
> 
> But, sadly for you, I doubt you are capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure slaveowners said the same thing when people objected to what they were doing. "Mind your own business, this is MY property."    I guess I have to post this meme on a regular basis around here, since some of you repeat the same inane logical fallacies over and over.
Click to expand...


I can't take you seriously at all. 

I already asked if you would be willing to pay $1,000,000 per fetus when the technology is available to transfer a fetus from a woman's uterus to an artificial incubator. At a yearly cost of approximately $638 billion per year (likely more) plus the newborn medical costs. 

You declined to answer (correct me if I'm wrong please, I did not go back and read the entire thread). If this were only about 'SAVING THE BABIES', you would have jumped on that like a tick on a hound dog. Anything to SAVE THE BABIES. No cost is too much to save a life, correct? Instead you passed. 

Your true motives are clear. Go shine your special golden whore bell.

Also, your slave owner argument might work better for you if you weren't insisting on forcing lifetime physical and emotional changes to another woman's body against her will. A woman you have never met. A woman you know nothing about. A woman you will never meet. And you don't think that looks like slavery. And you think it's sane.


----------



## buttercup

Since the proaborts here refuse to look at anything that contradicts their view, and won't read anything longer than 2 sentences, I'm going to post memes.  They usually work better for people who have the attention span of a gnat.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope someday you all can figure out how to be happy with your wonderful husbands instead of fretting and bawling over what's happening inside some other woman's uterus.
> 
> But, sadly for you, I doubt you are capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure slaveowners said the same thing when people objected to what they were doing. "Mind your own business, this is MY property."    I guess I have to post this meme on a regular basis around here, since some of you repeat the same inane logical fallacies over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't take you seriously at all.
> 
> I already asked if you would be willing to pay $1,000,000 per fetus when the technology is available to transfer a fetus from a woman's uterus to an artificial incubator. At a yearly cost of approximately $638 billion per year (likely more) plus the newborn medical costs.
> 
> You declined to answer (correct me if I'm wrong please, I did not go back and read the entire thread). If this were only about 'SAVING THE BABIES', you would have jumped on that like a tick on a hound dog. Anything to SAVE THE BABIES. No cost is too much to save a life, correct? Instead you passed.
> 
> Your true motives are clear. Go shine your special golden whore bell.
> 
> Also, your slave owner argument might work better for you if you weren't insisting on forcing lifetime physical and emotional changes to another woman's body against her will. A woman you have never met. A woman you know nothing about. A woman you will never meet. And you don't think that looks like slavery. And you think it's sane.
Click to expand...


Logic isn't your forte, is it?   99% of your responses are logical fallacies.

As for the last thing you said, NO women ever regrets having her baby, whether she keeps her child or gives someone else the gift of life.  Many, MANY women deeply regret having an abortion.  It's something irreversible that they will carry for the rest of their life.

You live in upside-down land.   Seriously.


----------



## buttercup

According to dblack and others here, this child is fine to kill.   "Born is born. Unborn is not." 

I'm wondering if they would be able to kill this baby with their own two hands?  My guess is no.  Which makes them hypocrites.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> Logic isn't your forte, is it?   99% of your responses are logical fallacies.
> 
> As for the last thing you said, NO women ever regrets having her baby, whether she keeps her child or gives someone else the gift of life.  Many, MANY women deeply regret having an abortion.  It's something irreversible that they will carry for the rest of their life.
> 
> You live in upside-down land.   Seriously.



Still unwilling to put life over $$. True colors always shine through. 

Stock up on that polish.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic isn't your forte, is it?   99% of your responses are logical fallacies.
> 
> As for the last thing you said, NO women ever regrets having her baby, whether she keeps her child or gives someone else the gift of life.  Many, MANY women deeply regret having an abortion.  It's something irreversible that they will carry for the rest of their life.
> 
> You live in upside-down land.   Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still unwilling to put life over $$. True colors always shine through.
> 
> Stock up on that polish.
Click to expand...


lol. It's impossible for you to put forth anything other than logical fallacies, isn't it?  The sad thing is, you appear to be completely oblivious to your many logical fallacies.  

Public schools in the US have failed us, evidently.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> lol. It's impossible for you to put forth anything other than logical fallacies, isn't it?  The sad thing is, you appear to be completely oblivious to your many logical fallacies.
> 
> Public schools in the US have failed us, evidently.


It is impossible for you to hide your true motives. 

You want women to behave themselves. To live their lives to your satisfaction. To think the way you think. 

This has nothing to do with protecting life and that is apparent for all to see.

I do understand why you are so agonized. It has got to be profoundly aggravating to realize the control you wish for is out of your reach.


----------



## buttercup

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. It's impossible for you to put forth anything other than logical fallacies, isn't it?  The sad thing is, you appear to be completely oblivious to your many logical fallacies.
> 
> Public schools in the US have failed us, evidently.
> 
> 
> 
> It is impossible for you to hide your true motives.
> 
> You want women to behave themselves. To live their lives to your satisfaction. To think the way you think.
> 
> This has nothing to do with protecting life and that is apparent for all to see.
> 
> I do understand why you are so agonized. It has got to be profoundly aggravating to realize the control you wish for is out of your reach.
Click to expand...


You wish, because that's precisely how you justify your evil, vile position.    But you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.


----------



## NotYourBody

buttercup said:


> You wish, because that's precisely how you justify your evil, vile position.    But you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.


Oh gosh are we back to that again? Did you forget?

I don't justify anything to you. Not one thing. I don't pretend any justification.

I just say


----------



## Vandalshandle

Fortunately, unlike decades ago, a woman can travel much easier than they could before. Therefor, a woman can always travel to Vermont, which recently expanded legal abortion statutes. So they ones who are poor, poverty stricken people from Southern ghettos would be the ones forced to give birth to babies. They, of course, will rely on Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and other state and federal welfare programs to raise the kids for 18 years. I am sure that the pro-life crowd enthusiastically approve of new expanded welfare spending to pay for all this.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Disney to stop filming in GA if abortion restriction is implemented.

Disney could leave Georgia over abortion ban, CEO Bob Iger says


----------



## gipper

NotYourBody said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. It's impossible for you to put forth anything other than logical fallacies, isn't it?  The sad thing is, you appear to be completely oblivious to your many logical fallacies.
> 
> Public schools in the US have failed us, evidently.
> 
> 
> 
> It is impossible for you to hide your true motives.
> 
> You want women to behave themselves. To live their lives to your satisfaction. To think the way you think.
> 
> This has nothing to do with protecting life and that is apparent for all to see.
> 
> I do understand why you are so agonized. It has got to be profoundly aggravating to realize the control you wish for is out of your reach.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don’t agonize over the mass murder of 60 million Americans in the womb.  Some of us do.


----------



## Leo123

Vandalshandle said:


> Fortunately, unlike decades ago, a woman can travel much easier than they could before. Therefor, a woman can always travel to Vermont, which recently expanded legal abortion statutes. So they ones who are poor, poverty stricken people from Southern ghettos would be the ones forced to give birth to babies. They, of course, will rely on Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and other state and federal welfare programs to raise the kids for 18 years. I am sure that the pro-life crowd enthusiastically approve of new expanded welfare spending to pay for all this.



I love the way you denigrate women!!  Apparently, according to you, they know no better.   Especially the ones way below your fake elevated status.   Take your pompous ass somewhere else.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> Disney to stop filming in GA if abortion restriction is implemented.
> 
> Disney could leave Georgia over abortion ban, CEO Bob Iger says


How ridiculous. 

Looking on the bright side, these boycotts of states for actions taken against left wing orthodoxy, could lead to a breakup of the nation.  That would be great.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Leo123 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, unlike decades ago, a woman can travel much easier than they could before. Therefor, a woman can always travel to Vermont, which recently expanded legal abortion statutes. So they ones who are poor, poverty stricken people from Southern ghettos would be the ones forced to give birth to babies. They, of course, will rely on Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and other state and federal welfare programs to raise the kids for 18 years. I am sure that the pro-life crowd enthusiastically approve of new expanded welfare spending to pay for all this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the way you denigrate women!!  Apparently, according to you, they know no better.   Especially the ones way below your fake elevated status.   Take your pompous ass somewhere else.
Click to expand...


No, I don't think so, Leo. I feel that it is my duty to expose hypocrisy of the GOP wherever I find it.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney to stop filming in GA if abortion restriction is implemented.
> 
> Disney could leave Georgia over abortion ban, CEO Bob Iger says
> 
> 
> 
> How ridiculous.
> 
> Looking on the bright side, these boycotts of states for actions taken against left wing orthodoxy, could lead to a breakup of the nation.  That would be great.
Click to expand...


Yeah. It went so well last time...


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney to stop filming in GA if abortion restriction is implemented.
> 
> Disney could leave Georgia over abortion ban, CEO Bob Iger says
> 
> 
> 
> How ridiculous.
> 
> Looking on the bright side, these boycotts of states for actions taken against left wing orthodoxy, could lead to a breakup of the nation.  That would be great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. It went so well last time...
Click to expand...

Yeah we know you think 60 million murdered Americans is a much better option. 

CRAZY!


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I invite you to read this, and try another answer:
> 
> Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973
> 
> What will you do about abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you don’t know how the nation’s court system works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
Click to expand...


Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".

And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the proaborts.
> 
> When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . . . Says the guy standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those same leftists right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help it if you guys keep changing sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you can help being willfully obtuse and thinking the entire world must be changing, rather than just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that's supposed to mean.
Click to expand...


It means that when you suddenly find that your usual allies are now your opponents and your usual opponents are now your allies, you're an idiot if you assume that you stood still and the whole rest of the world changed position.  It's far more likely that YOU moved.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system."
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached,  it's very much a part of a women's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, thank you for that declaration of "scientific fact" from the cutting edge of 1910 or so.  Also, these new-fangled automobile things are just a fad, and will never catch on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, thank you for that definitive assertion of cutting-edge 1910 "science", not to mention the "English For Morons" word definition.  I'm quite sure that THIS time, when you tell us that your uneducated perceptions are reality, we'll just blindly let you dictate the debate parameters, despite having mocked your lack of basic biology the last 300 or so times you laughably tried to declare that every medical advance of the 20th century in that field was non-existent simply because it didn't fit what you wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there an emoji for the "jerk-off" gesture? We need one of those. Born is born. Unborn is not. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Oh, wow, what a profound epiphany you've had.  This word is itself, and THAT word is itself.  You must be so proud.

I can only assume this is your lame attempt to sidestep the fact that you said something utterly asinine, know it, and don't want to admit it.

"It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means."  Either show me where the word born contains ANY assertion that a baby is "part of the mother's body", or admit that you were projecting your badly-outdated and incorrect personal opinion onto the language.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a copout.  "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."
> 
> Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.
> 
> I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes?  Because that's what you're asking:  for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that.  I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.
> 
> You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously.  Really let that sink in for a minute.
> 
> And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It's different when we do it."
Click to expand...


What the fuck are you babbling about?


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope someday you all can figure out how to be happy with your wonderful husbands instead of fretting and bawling over what's happening inside some other woman's uterus.
> 
> But, sadly for you, I doubt you are capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure slaveowners said the same thing when people objected to what they were doing. "Mind your own business, this is MY property."    I guess I have to post this meme on a regular basis around here, since some of you repeat the same inane logical fallacies over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't take you seriously at all.
> 
> I already asked if you would be willing to pay $1,000,000 per fetus when the technology is available to transfer a fetus from a woman's uterus to an artificial incubator. At a yearly cost of approximately $638 billion per year (likely more) plus the newborn medical costs.
> 
> You declined to answer (correct me if I'm wrong please, I did not go back and read the entire thread). If this were only about 'SAVING THE BABIES', you would have jumped on that like a tick on a hound dog. Anything to SAVE THE BABIES. No cost is too much to save a life, correct? Instead you passed.
> 
> Your true motives are clear. Go shine your special golden whore bell.
> 
> Also, your slave owner argument might work better for you if you weren't insisting on forcing lifetime physical and emotional changes to another woman's body against her will. A woman you have never met. A woman you know nothing about. A woman you will never meet. And you don't think that looks like slavery. And you think it's sane.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic isn't your forte, is it?   99% of your responses are logical fallacies.
> 
> As for the last thing you said, NO women ever regrets having her baby, whether she keeps her child or gives someone else the gift of life.  Many, MANY women deeply regret having an abortion.  It's something irreversible that they will carry for the rest of their life.
> 
> You live in upside-down land.   Seriously.
Click to expand...


I really hate to have to disagree on this point, but our society has become so debased and self-centered that there actually ARE women now who say they regret allowing their children to live because they aren't happy with how it affected THEM.


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> left tard males only care about poking women.  The result, they hope, will be 'contracepted' or killed by the sucker women they swoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why many proabort men want abortion-on-demand. It completely absolves them of responsibility for the life they helped to create. It allows the player type guys to treat women like objects and not be accountable.
> 
> You are absolutely right that those women are suckers (to say it bluntly... many are lost and naive) which just goes to show that abortion is actually a symptom of a misguided and sick society.
Click to expand...


All true.  It's not at all uncommon, sadly, for a man confronted by a woman he impregnated to say, "Well, you could have had an abortion.  You chose to keep the kid, so it's YOUR problem."  Mind you, if she takes it to the courts, THEY tend not to agree (yet), but the attitude is out there.

And studies have shown that the legalization of abortion and the resultant attitudes toward sex and the possibility of pregnancy have had the effect of making ALL women, even those who would never consider aborting, feel more pressured to agree to sex and less able to say no.

Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann, “The Effect of Abortion Legalization on Sexual Behavior: Evidence from Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” _Journal of Legal Studies_ 32 (2003): 407-433 
Elizabeth Oltmans Ananat, Jonathan Gruber, Phillip B. Levine, and Douglas Staiger, “Abortion and Selection,” _The Review of Economics and Statistics_ 91, no. 1 (2009): 124-136, p. 127 (first two full paragraphs, and succeeding analysis) 
Philip Levine, _Sex and Consequences: Abortion, Public Policy, and the Economics of Fertility_ (Princeton University Press, 2007)


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a copout.  "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."
> 
> Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.
> 
> I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes?  Because that's what you're asking:  for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that.  I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.
> 
> You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously.  Really let that sink in for a minute.
> And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It's different when we do it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you babbling about?
Click to expand...


I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. You pretend to want limited government and protection for individual rights. Except when you don't. Except when you imagine something is going on inside another person that offends you.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you don’t know how the nation’s court system works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
Click to expand...


And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> "It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means."  Either show me where the word born contains ANY assertion that a baby is "part of the mother's body", or admit that you were projecting your badly-outdated and incorrect personal opinion onto the language.



*birth*

_noun_

1.
the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; *the start of life as a physically separate being*.


----------



## depotoo

Let’s look at some other countries abortion laws, shall we?

In Germany, women seeking first-trimester abortions are subject to a mandatory three-day waiting period and a counseling session. Abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy are forbidden except in cases of grave threat to the mother's physical or mental health. 
The Netherlands mandates a five-day waiting period between initial consultation and abortion; clinics must provide women with information about abortion alternatives. Abortion is then legal until viability (legally defined as 24 weeks, usually interpreted as 22 weeks).  
In Belgium, where abortion was illegal until 1990, there's a six-day waiting period and the woman must claim to be in "a state of distress" before receiving a first-trimester abortion.

In Finland (home of the now-famous Finnish baby boxes and other enviable government benefits), abortion is available up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, unless the woman is under 17 years old, in which case she may have an abortion until she's 20 weeks pregnant. But even for early abortions, women must provide a "social reason" for seeking to terminate her pregnancy, such as poverty, extreme distress, or already having at least four children. While in practice most abortion requests are granted, it still forces women to prove to an authority the validity of their desire not to have a baby. In Denmark, abortion is available on demand up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Afterward, exceptions are made for cases of rape, threats to the woman's physical or mental health, risk of fetal defects, and -- revealingly -- in cases where the woman can demonstrate lack of financial resources to care for a child.

Israel (though not part of Europe, obviously) has similarly idiosyncratic requirements and restrictions. Though  93 percent of American Jews support abortion rights in all or most cases, and the Torah has little to say about abortion, the Jewish state of Israel has fairly heavy-handed abortion laws. Abortion is illegal for married women between ages 17 and 40, except in cases of rape, incest, fetal malformation, or risk to the mother's physical or mental health. Women eligible for abortions (the unmarried ones, that is) must submit to ultrasounds, wade through rivers of paperwork, and plead their case to an expert.

Eastern Europe, a stronghold of liberal abortion laws under Communism, has become increasingly strict of late. Russia  recently passed a law restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and Russian clinics are also now forced to give (medically dubious) warnings about the health risks of abortion, which supposedly include cancer and infertility. After the fall of the USSR, Poland enacted some of Europe's strictest abortion laws , banning the procedure except in cases of rape, fetal malformation, or serious threats to the woman's health. The Ukraine is currently threatening to follow suit.


So what are the countries with the most liberal abortion laws? Canada is a decent candidate, with abortion available on-demand, paid for by Canadian Medicare in most provinces. Though there is no federal criminal law governing abortion at any phase of pregnancy, in practice it is extremely difficult to find a doctor or facility willing to provide abortions past 20 weeks. Certain U.S. states --  notably New York and Washington -- are especially supportive to woman seeking abortions, and are moving towards having even fewer restraints, even as most other states move in the opposite direction.
In Liberal Europe, Abortion Laws Come With Their Own Restrictions


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "pro-abort"?  - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???
> 
> Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . Says the guy standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those same leftists right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help it if you guys keep changing sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you can help being willfully obtuse and thinking the entire world must be changing, rather than just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that's supposed to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means that when you suddenly find that your usual allies are now your opponents and your usual opponents are now your allies, you're an idiot if you assume that you stood still and the whole rest of the world changed position.  It's far more likely that YOU moved.
Click to expand...


In this case, that's not so - and you know it. The political principles of both major parties blow with the wind. Both parties only care about liberty when they're not in power. When they actually have the ability to force their will on others with the power of government, they're more than eager to do so.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a copout.  "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."
> 
> Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.
> 
> I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes?  Because that's what you're asking:  for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that.  I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.
> 
> You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously.  Really let that sink in for a minute.
> And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It's different when we do it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. You pretend to want limited government and protection for individual rights. Except when you don't. Except when you imagine something is going on inside another person that offends you.
Click to expand...


You can call out until your fucking face is blue.  I don't "pretend" anything, and you can get the fuck over your assumption that YOU are some sort of arbiter of what constitutes belief in limited government.  I don't answer to you.  Maybe next time you set out to judge someone, you should consider first whether or not they utterly reject and spit on your pretention of authority.

Should you ever decide to stop aping your new sanctimonious leftist asshole buddies and actually find out what people think and why, rather than just ASSuming the most negative connotation you can invent, feel free to come back and ASK me, like the thoughtful conservative you want to tell yourself you still are.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.
> 
> I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes?  Because that's what you're asking:  for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that.  I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.
> 
> You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously.  Really let that sink in for a minute.
> And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It's different when we do it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. You pretend to want limited government and protection for individual rights. Except when you don't. Except when you imagine something is going on inside another person that offends you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call out until your fucking face is blue.  I don't "pretend" anything, and you can get the fuck over your assumption that YOU are some sort of arbiter of what constitutes belief in limited government.  I don't answer to you.  Maybe next time you set out to judge someone, you should consider first whether or not they utterly reject and spit on your pretention of authority.
> 
> Should you ever decide to stop aping your new sanctimonious leftist asshole buddies and actually find out what people think and why, rather than just ASSuming the most negative connotation you can invent, feel free to come back and ASK me, like the thoughtful conservative you want to tell yourself you still are.
Click to expand...


I'm not a conservative.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
Click to expand...


"Contents of a person's body" = "I'm so ignorant of biology, I think a fetus is the same as urine and feces!  Please laugh at me!"

Do me a favor and let me know now if you're planning to just spend time posting about how you're withholding your approval of me.  I'd like to save some time and just scroll past it to something that matters to me.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Contents of a person's body" = "I'm so ignorant of biology, I think a fetus is the same as urine and feces!  Please laugh at me!"
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what it is. I don't want government claiming authority over my innards. Period.



> Do me a favor and let me know now if you're planning to just spend time posting about how you're withholding your approval of me.  I'd like to save some time and just scroll past it to something that matters to me.



I don't know anything about you. But if you're advocating for state regulation of the womb, I think you're wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means."  Either show me where the word born contains ANY assertion that a baby is "part of the mother's body", or admit that you were projecting your badly-outdated and incorrect personal opinion onto the language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *birth*
> 
> _noun_
> 
> 1.
> the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; *the start of life as a physically separate being*.
Click to expand...


Is it even worth the effort of explaining to you the difference between "physically separate" and "was part of the mother's body"?  Probably not, given that you haven't learned anything newer than 1940.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . Says the guy standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those same leftists right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help it if you guys keep changing sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you can help being willfully obtuse and thinking the entire world must be changing, rather than just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that's supposed to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means that when you suddenly find that your usual allies are now your opponents and your usual opponents are now your allies, you're an idiot if you assume that you stood still and the whole rest of the world changed position.  It's far more likely that YOU moved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case, that's not so - and you know it. The political principles of both major parties blow with the wind. Both parties only care about liberty when they're not in power. When they actually have the ability to force their will on others with the power of government, they're more than eager to do so.
Click to expand...


I know nothing of the sort, because unlike you, I didn't jump right to "political parties".  So again, you are ASSuming things.  Thanks for yet another meaningless venture into the world of morons who think they're smart.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes?  Because that's what you're asking:  for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that.  I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.
> 
> You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously.  Really let that sink in for a minute.
> And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It's different when we do it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. You pretend to want limited government and protection for individual rights. Except when you don't. Except when you imagine something is going on inside another person that offends you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call out until your fucking face is blue.  I don't "pretend" anything, and you can get the fuck over your assumption that YOU are some sort of arbiter of what constitutes belief in limited government.  I don't answer to you.  Maybe next time you set out to judge someone, you should consider first whether or not they utterly reject and spit on your pretention of authority.
> 
> Should you ever decide to stop aping your new sanctimonious leftist asshole buddies and actually find out what people think and why, rather than just ASSuming the most negative connotation you can invent, feel free to come back and ASK me, like the thoughtful conservative you want to tell yourself you still are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a conservative.
Click to expand...


That's obvious.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Contents of a person's body" = "I'm so ignorant of biology, I think a fetus is the same as urine and feces!  Please laugh at me!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what it is. I don't want government claiming authority over my innards. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do me a favor and let me know now if you're planning to just spend time posting about how you're withholding your approval of me.  I'd like to save some time and just scroll past it to something that matters to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about you. But if you're advocating for state regulation of the womb, I think you're wrong.
Click to expand...


"It doesn't matter what it is."  You should get that on a t-shirt.  Proud ignorance seems to be your motto.

"State regulation of the womb" = "I'm too fucking stupid to know the difference between the uterus and the living organism inside it!  Please think of me as the village idiot!"


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Contents of a person's body" = "I'm so ignorant of biology, I think a fetus is the same as urine and feces!  Please laugh at me!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what it is. I don't want government claiming authority over my innards. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do me a favor and let me know now if you're planning to just spend time posting about how you're withholding your approval of me.  I'd like to save some time and just scroll past it to something that matters to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about you. But if you're advocating for state regulation of the womb, I think you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It doesn't matter what it is."  You should get that on a t-shirt.  Proud ignorance seems to be your motto.
> 
> "State regulation of the womb" = "I'm too fucking stupid to know the difference between the uterus and the living organism inside it!  Please think of me as the village idiot!"
Click to expand...


Nope. I just don't want government that claims the right to regulate the contents of my body.

Modern conservatives and liberals agree on one thing: the power of government to shape society. They're kidding themselves, but when they act on their delusion, and try to force their idea of virtue on everyone else via law, it creates very real problems.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Contents of a person's body" = "I'm so ignorant of biology, I think a fetus is the same as urine and feces!  Please laugh at me!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what it is. I don't want government claiming authority over my innards. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do me a favor and let me know now if you're planning to just spend time posting about how you're withholding your approval of me.  I'd like to save some time and just scroll past it to something that matters to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about you. But if you're advocating for state regulation of the womb, I think you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It doesn't matter what it is."  You should get that on a t-shirt.  Proud ignorance seems to be your motto.
> 
> "State regulation of the womb" = "I'm too fucking stupid to know the difference between the uterus and the living organism inside it!  Please think of me as the village idiot!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I just don't want government that claims the right to regulate the contents of my body.
> 
> Modern conservatives and liberals agree on one thing: the power of government to shape society. They're kidding themselves, but when they act on their delusion, and try to force their idea of virtue on everyone else via law, it creates very real problems.
Click to expand...


I'm done with you, Jethro.  If I spend any more time talking to your mentally-challenged self, I'm gonna need a receipt so I can claim it on my taxes as a charitable deduction.

Happy ignorance to you.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Contents of a person's body" = "I'm so ignorant of biology, I think a fetus is the same as urine and feces!  Please laugh at me!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what it is. I don't want government claiming authority over my innards. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do me a favor and let me know now if you're planning to just spend time posting about how you're withholding your approval of me.  I'd like to save some time and just scroll past it to something that matters to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about you. But if you're advocating for state regulation of the womb, I think you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It doesn't matter what it is."  You should get that on a t-shirt.  Proud ignorance seems to be your motto.
> 
> "State regulation of the womb" = "I'm too fucking stupid to know the difference between the uterus and the living organism inside it!  Please think of me as the village idiot!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I just don't want government that claims the right to regulate the contents of my body.
> 
> Modern conservatives and liberals agree on one thing: the power of government to shape society. They're kidding themselves, but when they act on their delusion, and try to force their idea of virtue on everyone else via law, it creates very real problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm done with you, Jethro.  If I spend any more time talking to your mentally-challenged self, I'm gonna need a receipt so I can claim it on my taxes as a charitable deduction.
> 
> Happy ignorance to you.
Click to expand...


Good deal. But if you post more hypocritical nonsense, I'll probably call it out as such.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
Click to expand...

Why would you equate (in a very dishonest way), that all things per government are equal (as if they are equal in every way) when they aren't ????? 

This is a tactic used, and it is a tactic that is getting very old these days. Give it up already. Good grief.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes?  Because that's what you're asking:  for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that.  I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.
> 
> You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously.  Really let that sink in for a minute.
> And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It's different when we do it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. You pretend to want limited government and protection for individual rights. Except when you don't. Except when you imagine something is going on inside another person that offends you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call out until your fucking face is blue.  I don't "pretend" anything, and you can get the fuck over your assumption that YOU are some sort of arbiter of what constitutes belief in limited government.  I don't answer to you.  Maybe next time you set out to judge someone, you should consider first whether or not they utterly reject and spit on your pretention of authority.
> 
> Should you ever decide to stop aping your new sanctimonious leftist asshole buddies and actually find out what people think and why, rather than just ASSuming the most negative connotation you can invent, feel free to come back and ASK me, like the thoughtful conservative you want to tell yourself you still are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a conservative.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because I could have sworn you said you were one a good while back here. Hmmm.

So now you aren't one ? OK.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's different when we do it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. You pretend to want limited government and protection for individual rights. Except when you don't. Except when you imagine something is going on inside another person that offends you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call out until your fucking face is blue.  I don't "pretend" anything, and you can get the fuck over your assumption that YOU are some sort of arbiter of what constitutes belief in limited government.  I don't answer to you.  Maybe next time you set out to judge someone, you should consider first whether or not they utterly reject and spit on your pretention of authority.
> 
> Should you ever decide to stop aping your new sanctimonious leftist asshole buddies and actually find out what people think and why, rather than just ASSuming the most negative connotation you can invent, feel free to come back and ASK me, like the thoughtful conservative you want to tell yourself you still are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny, because I could have sworn you said you were one a good while back here. Hmmm.
> 
> So now you aren't one ? OK.
Click to expand...


I've never said that.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you equate (in a very dishonest way), that all things per government are equal (as if they are equal in every way) when they aren't ?????
> 
> This is a tactic used, and it is a tactic that is getting very old these days. Give it up already. Good grief.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you're trying to say here.


----------



## Leo123

dblack said:


> Nope. I just don't want government that claims the right to regulate the contents of my body.
> 
> Modern conservatives and liberals agree on one thing: the power of government to shape society. They're kidding themselves, but when they act on their delusion, and try to force their idea of virtue on everyone else via law, it creates very real problems.



Don't ever vote for government health care then.


----------



## dblack

Leo123 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I just don't want government that claims the right to regulate the contents of my body.
> 
> Modern conservatives and liberals agree on one thing: the power of government to shape society. They're kidding themselves, but when they act on their delusion, and try to force their idea of virtue on everyone else via law, it creates very real problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever vote for government health care then.
Click to expand...


LOL - OK, I won't. Your stereotypes need some work.


----------



## LilOlLady

Deplorable Yankee said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Premie born at 24 weeks. Pro-aborts say this CHILD should be perfectly legal to kill. Sadistic fucks.
> 
> View attachment 262793
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that one of them famous blob of cells /parasites that make the leftards want to vacuum away in pieces ?
> 
> 
> View attachment 262795
Click to expand...

I would bet these three are still parasites living at home with mom and dad who is giving them shelter, feeding them. providing medical care and clothing them. And they should be castrated and their tubes tied.


----------



## LilOlLady

If you do not want the* unwanted visitor *in your body *do not let him or her move in* and then complain that you want him or her *removed.*


----------



## LilOlLady

BWK said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
Click to expand...

*GOD tells me when life begins. *
"_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
 Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.


----------



## dblack

LilOlLady said:


> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.



That's between you and God. Certainly none of my business.


----------



## LilOlLady

If at birth the newborn take it's first breath is considered a living being and viable is nonsense because a newborn can only breathe on it's own but if left alone it would die because it cannot feed itself, etc. The only difference between the newborn and the unborn is the way they take in *oxygen and food.*


----------



## LilOlLady

dblack said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's between you and God. Certainly none of my business.
Click to expand...


----------



## SAYIT

LilOlLady said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
Click to expand...

God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.

Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?


----------



## Cecilie1200

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you equate (in a very dishonest way), that all things per government are equal (as if they are equal in every way) when they aren't ?????
> 
> This is a tactic used, and it is a tactic that is getting very old these days. Give it up already. Good grief.
Click to expand...


Standard leftist playbook.  "Limited government means you HAVE TO WANT NO GOVERNMENT EVER!!!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAYIT said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with one thing.  God DOES speak to all of us.  Not all of us listen.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Regulating our bodily processes."  You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice attempt at dodging.  You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes".  Abortion is not a "bodily process".
> 
> And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue.  Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you equate (in a very dishonest way), that all things per government are equal (as if they are equal in every way) when they aren't ?????
> 
> This is a tactic used, and it is a tactic that is getting very old these days. Give it up already. Good grief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard leftist playbook.  "Limited government means you HAVE TO WANT NO GOVERNMENT EVER!!!"
Click to expand...


And that's the standard statist retort. Good for you!


----------



## SAYIT

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standard leftist playbook.  "Limited government means you HAVE TO WANT NO GOVERNMENT EVER!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the standard statist retort. Good for you!
Click to expand...

So you admit Cecille's contention has merit but resent those who say it?

BTW, statists are those who want lots of big, fat, greasy central gov't. Basically, leftists.


----------



## dblack

SAYIT said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standard leftist playbook.  "Limited government means you HAVE TO WANT NO GOVERNMENT EVER!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the standard statist retort. Good for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit Cecille's contention has merit but resent those who say it?
Click to expand...


So, you make shit up and pretend it's what someone else said?


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAYIT said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standard leftist playbook.  "Limited government means you HAVE TO WANT NO GOVERNMENT EVER!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the standard statist retort. Good for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit Cecille's contention has merit but resent those who say it?
> 
> BTW, statists are those who want lots of big, fat, greasy central gov't. Basically, leftists.
Click to expand...


Jethro's not exactly swift on the uptake.


----------



## rightwinger

BlueGin said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dead babies are dead babies
> 
> You can’t excuse the savage slaughter of hundreds of thousand of babies and then say God would be outraged over abortion
> 
> 
> 
> Your simple mind concerning God is noted. For you to even attempt to contend with he for whom has created the universe and everything in it is highly laughable, but you have fun with that audience of one you like to entertain, because no one else is impressed with your ramblings at all but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple mind ignores the slaughter of innocents by your God
> 
> He may have created the universe, but to kill innocent children for the actions of their parents is not admirable
> 
> You can’t claim God cares about the innocent unborn when he slaughters the innocent living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like after slaughtering millions of unborn babies in the most heinous fashion and equating them to parasites...liberals then like to pretend that when they exploit living children for political reasons others are supposed to all of a sudden believe it’s because they “care”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aborting an undeveloped embryo is not the same as God slaughtering a smiling, giggling little baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the Passover? Keep in mind the pharaoh killed the male children of the enslaved Jews because he didn’t want their population to grow bigger than that of the Egyptians. This angered the lord and brought about Moses.
> 
> Pharaoh was told to free the slaves by God ( thru Moses) . He refused. Hence the plagues that set upon Egypt. One of which was the deaths of first born. God did not kill all of the children ...he told his people how to avoid the death of their first born. The faithful that followed his instructions were passed over.
> 
> So...if you are going to use this as a talking point...use it in context...or not at all.
Click to expand...

So God took it out on innocent babies instead of the Pharaho


----------



## sealybobo

LilOlLady said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
Click to expand...

Not all of us believe in your god.

What if my god and my religion say it’s ok? 

Or do we all have to go by what your religion says?

Ps. Lots of Christians are pro choice. What denomination are you? Do we have to go with that one?


----------



## sealybobo

SAYIT said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
Click to expand...

Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.

You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent


----------



## sealybobo

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> 
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with one thing.  God DOES speak to all of us.  Not all of us listen.
Click to expand...

There is no god it’s all in your head. Voices in your head


----------



## Vandalshandle

Actually, most South America gods DEMANDED blood sacrifices. But the Spaniards came over and destroyed those gods and killed 90% of the entire indigenous population while carrying the cross.


----------



## buttercup

sealybobo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> 
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
Click to expand...


It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.

Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.

And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
Click to expand...

The most disgusting thing is, you still have yet to establish when that life begins, and neither has anyone else. The best scientific explanation is when the first cellular organisms came into existence in the world. And if we go by that science, life never ended. But, if we go by the sperm and the egg missing the target, the woman just aborted life, and that happened on its own. Therefore, life is just an interpretation of one's own desires. If it was real life, the fetus would be talking, and crying. There is no conscious brain to tell it it is experiencing life. So, when does it begin? Who knows? 

It's incredibly naive, ignorant, and straight up stupid to claim there is life after conception, when the cells were already alive, until they died by not joining. Therefore, at that point, common horse sense should kick in. How can you say a woman is killing, when the death of those live cells comes most of the time on its own? The fact that the mother would terminate it at conception is no different had the cells not joined. This is crazy talk by radical religious nuts.

When does life begin? - RationalWiki


----------



## BWK

sealybobo said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man doesn't right? What a pussy and a coward to put it all off on the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all of us believe in your god.
> 
> What if my god and my religion say it’s ok?
> 
> Or do we all have to go by what your religion says?
> 
> Ps. Lots of Christians are pro choice. What denomination are you? Do we have to go with that one?
Click to expand...

No you don't. Separation of church and state. These folks are religious wackos wanting to push their religion onto you.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The most disgusting thing is, you still have yet to establish when that life begins, and neither has anyone else. The best scientific explanation is when the first cellular organisms came into existence in the world. And if we go by that science, life never ended. But, if we go by the sperm and the egg missing the target, the woman just aborted life, and that happened on its own. Therefore, life is just an interpretation of one's own desires. If it was real life, the fetus would be talking, and crying. There is no conscious brain to tell it it is experiencing life. So, when does it begin? Who knows?
> 
> It's incredibly naive, ignorant, and straight up stupid to claim there is life after conception, when the cells were already alive, until they died by not joining. Therefore, at that point, common horse sense should kick in. How can you say a woman is killing, when the death of those live cells comes most of the time on its own? The fact that the mother would terminate it at conception is no different had the cells not joined. This is crazy talk by radical religious nuts.
> 
> When does life begin? - RationalWiki
Click to expand...


We've posted TONS of data for you, from embryology and biology textbooks, etc, and each time you dismiss it, without even reading it.  You keep asking a question with a mind that is completely shut off to any response other than what you already believe. It is super clear that you don't understand basic biology.

I'm going to post one more thing for you, and a link for you to read, IF you are sincere (which you don't appear to be.)


* Basic human embryological facts*

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — *the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). * That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being.  During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cowards republicans are for not putting this on their 2020 platform. Or how stupid democrats are for not rallying women. Republicans war on women and freedom
> 
> 
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it's life. You might but I don't. I know it's cells and none of yours or my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my nose in my own life. That's because I actually have a life. You don't. Which is why you stick your nose in total strangers business where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Your problem is the law just isn't on your side and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> Tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all of us believe in your god.
> 
> What if my god and my religion say it’s ok?
> 
> Or do we all have to go by what your religion says?
> 
> Ps. Lots of Christians are pro choice. What denomination are you? Do we have to go with that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you don't. Separation of church and state. These folks are religious wackos wanting to push their religion onto you.
Click to expand...


Has nothing to do with religion. Which is why there are plenty of NON-religious, NON-conservative pro-lifers:

Secular Groups:
Secular Pro-Life
Pro-Life Atheists
Pro-Life Humanists
Rehumanize International (Nonsectarian)

Non-Conservative Groups:
Democrats For Life of America (DFLA)
Whole Life: Pro-life Democrats, Progressives, and Feminists
American Solidarity Party
PLAGAL - The Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
Consistent Life

Feminist Groups:
Feminists for Life
Susan B. Anthony List
New Wave Feminists
Feminists for Nonviolent Choices
Feminists Choosing Life of New York


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person



There are also "Libertarians for Trump". Probably, somewhere, "Libertarians for Hitler". It even seems possible there's a black KKK member somewhere. Doesn't prove anything, other than that there are a lot of deluded people out there.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also "Libertarians for Trump". Probably, somewhere, "Libertarians for Hitler". It even seems possible there's a black KKK member somewhere. Doesn't prove anything, other than that there are a lot of deluded people out there.
Click to expand...


Everything they say is cited, look at the bottom of the page. But if you don't like a libertarian website, then here you go:

Secular Groups:
Secular Pro-Life
Pro-Life Atheists
Pro-Life Humanists
Rehumanize International (Nonsectarian)

Non-Conservative Groups:
Democrats For Life of America (DFLA)
Whole Life: Pro-life Democrats, Progressives, and Feminists
American Solidarity Party
PLAGAL - The Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
Consistent Life

Feminist Groups:
Feminists for Life
Susan B. Anthony List
New Wave Feminists
Feminists for Nonviolent Choices
Feminists Choosing Life of New York


----------



## dblack

buttercup said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also "Libertarians for Trump". Probably, somewhere, "Libertarians for Hitler". It even seems possible there's a black KKK member somewhere. Doesn't prove anything, other than that there are a lot of deluded people out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't like a libertarian website, then here you go:
> 
> Secular Groups:
> Secular Pro-Life
> Pro-Life Atheists
> Pro-Life Humanists
> Rehumanize International (Nonsectarian)
> 
> Non-Conservative Groups:
> Democrats For Life of America (DFLA)
> Whole Life: Pro-life Democrats, Progressives, and Feminists
> American Solidarity Party
> PLAGAL - The Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
> Consistent Life
> 
> Feminist Groups:
> Feminists for Life
> Susan B. Anthony List
> New Wave Feminists
> Feminists for Nonviolent Choices
> Feminists Choosing Life of New York
Click to expand...


Yep. Contradiction abounds. People are confused. What's your point?


----------



## Vandalshandle

buttercup said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
Click to expand...


There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....


----------



## BWK

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
Click to expand...

They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leftarded war on babies : "*kill the little womb blobs*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to dehumanize the preborn with your dismissive, disrespectful misleading words.   By the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a beating heart, brain waves, a little face and body, organs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all of us believe in your god.
> 
> What if my god and my religion say it’s ok?
> 
> Or do we all have to go by what your religion says?
> 
> Ps. Lots of Christians are pro choice. What denomination are you? Do we have to go with that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you don't. Separation of church and state. These folks are religious wackos wanting to push their religion onto you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with religion. Which is why there are plenty of NON-religious, NON-conservative pro-lifers:
> 
> Secular Groups:
> Secular Pro-Life
> Pro-Life Atheists
> Pro-Life Humanists
> Rehumanize International (Nonsectarian)
> 
> Non-Conservative Groups:
> Democrats For Life of America (DFLA)
> Whole Life: Pro-life Democrats, Progressives, and Feminists
> American Solidarity Party
> PLAGAL - The Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
> Consistent Life
> 
> Feminist Groups:
> Feminists for Life
> Susan B. Anthony List
> New Wave Feminists
> Feminists for Nonviolent Choices
> Feminists Choosing Life of New York
Click to expand...

Okay! So? And that changes what? Lol! Nothing! You still are doing the same thing. Circling the wagon of the unknowns.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, no one can tell us when life begins. Oh wait a minute, you can. Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
Click to expand...


About scientific fact?  No, because opinion is irrelevant to fact.  Why would anyone WANT to make room for something that's irrelevant?


----------



## Unkotare

There is nothing more precious than new innocent life brimming with potential. Anyone who cannot see that really has no place calling themselves a human being. Anyone who thinks that an unborn baby is a seed has failed biology more miserably than once thought possible.


----------



## Magnificat

theHawk said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Another nonsensical argument.  No conservative ever says that once a baby is born “it’s on its own”.  It’s the parents responsibility to raise it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if that parent has trouble, we work hard to help, most of us through charitable organizations.
> 
> The WORST way to "help" is through statist gov't entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most women only need assistance because the father runs out on them, or because they have the attitude that they don’t need a man.
> 
> Again, all the lies of feminism cause most of this shit.
Click to expand...

One of my favorites is when they claim that the baby might have a difficult life,  so let's kill it.


----------



## theHawk

Vandalshandle said:


> Actually, most South America gods DEMANDED blood sacrifices. But the Spaniards came over and destroyed those gods and killed 90% of the entire indigenous population while carrying the cross.



Disease did most of it.  So that is on Darwinism, not Christianity.


----------



## sparky

Women do not wish to be_ vessels _w/legs, 

Men do not wish to be seen as _wallets_ w/legs 

remove the fiscal _obligation_ , and you'll gain the _bodily _right 

it's that simple

~S~


----------



## beagle9

LilOlLady said:


> If you do not want the* unwanted visitor *in your body *do not let him or her move in* and then complain that you want him or her *removed.*


I think that since they themselves are not doing the removing or abortion by their own hand themselves, then they figure that maybe it exonerates them from the sin they are committing ????? They, they, they said it was ok, so I figured they were right (i.e. they might say or think).

Hmmmm.  Sort of like the suicide by cop crowd, where as they figure that they might stand a chance on the other side maybe, otherwise if they didn't do the suicide thing themselves ?? Again, how stupid is that ??

Very tricky and clever they might think that they are, but they are only fooling themselves sadly enough in the end.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> There is nothing more precious than new innocent life brimming with potential. Anyone who cannot see that really has no place calling themselves a human being. Anyone who thinks that an unborn baby is a seed has failed biology more miserably than once thought possible.


----------



## Vandalshandle

theHawk said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most South America gods DEMANDED blood sacrifices. But the Spaniards came over and destroyed those gods and killed 90% of the entire indigenous population while carrying the cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disease did most of it.  So that is on Darwinism, not Christianity.
Click to expand...


Well, since disease did MOST of it, everything was Ok then!


----------



## theHawk

Vandalshandle said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most South America gods DEMANDED blood sacrifices. But the Spaniards came over and destroyed those gods and killed 90% of the entire indigenous population while carrying the cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disease did most of it.  So that is on Darwinism, not Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since disease did MOST of it, everything was Ok then!
Click to expand...


Didn’t say it was OK.  Just that it’s the fault of Darwinists.


----------



## beagle9

theHawk said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most South America gods DEMANDED blood sacrifices. But the Spaniards came over and destroyed those gods and killed 90% of the entire indigenous population while carrying the cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disease did most of it.  So that is on Darwinism, not Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since disease did MOST of it, everything was Ok then!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn’t say it was OK.  Just that it’s the fault of Darwinists.
Click to expand...

Contending with some of these people is the biggest waste of time that there is. Just sayin.


----------



## mamooth

Unkotare said:


> There is nothing more precious than new innocent life brimming with potential.



Being that you happily let human life die for your own selfish needs, that's obviously self-serving bullshit on your part. It's easy to talk a big game. And that's all you do.



> Anyone who cannot see that really has no place calling themselves a human being. Anyone who thinks that an unborn baby is a seed has failed biology more miserably than once thought possible.



Look at all the modern conveniences you partake in. You could use that money to save lives. You don't.

Your philosophy is "Life is more precious than anything, except for my own selfish conveniences". Just another sad control freak putting on a smarmy hypocrite routine.


----------



## mamooth

SAYIT said:


> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?



Specks obviously aren't babies. My cat has a brain the size of a walnut, and even she knows that specks aren't babies. Speck. Baby. Speck. Baby. Different things, see? 

Only crazy people and liars say specks are babies. Anyone making that claim needs to clarify which category they fall in.


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious than new innocent life brimming with potential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you happily let human life die for your own selfish needs, that's obviously self-serving bullshit on your part. It's easy to talk a big game. And that's all you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cannot see that really has no place calling themselves a human being. Anyone who thinks that an unborn baby is a seed has failed biology more miserably than once thought possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at all the modern conveniences you partake in. You could use that money to save lives. You don't.
> 
> Your philosophy is "Life is more precious than anything, except for my own selfish conveniences". Just another sad control freak putting on a smarmy hypocrite routine.
Click to expand...

No one wants to control anyone, but only to promote life regardless of where that life is at any given time.  It's not the job of anyone to take a fully responsible person by the hand, and show them that killing a perfectly healthy baby in the womb is sin. They should already know this, but for some unGodly reason they don't or they are lying when they say that they don't. The job of pro-lifers is to educate, and then to councel if nessesary in the situation. If the pro-choice crowd bucks, then maybe laws could change minds if crimes are being committed.


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> We've posted TONS of data for you,



No, you've posted various subjective opinion pieces, and then pretended they were TheTruth, when they were just someone's subjective opinion piece.

All of humanity over all of human history says personhood begins at birth. Your bizarre pro-life definitions are very recent historical revisionism. If you want to overturn such an established precedent, you'll need to do better than repeating "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" over and over.

Abortion was legal and common when the USA was founded, the founders knew it, and they didn't see a problem with it. Me, I'm with the founders and their respect for liberty.


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specks obviously aren't babies. My cat has a brain the size of a walnut, and even she knows that specks aren't babies. Speck. Baby. Speck. Baby. Different things, see?
> 
> Only crazy people and liars say specks are babies. Anyone making that claim needs to clarify which category they fall in.
Click to expand...

Takes that speck to create the process or formula for life, and if that speck becomes a fetus, and it is killed by outside forces intent on murdering the child in the womb, then Houston we got a serious sin problem on our hands, not to forget to mention the blood on the nations hands also.


----------



## mamooth

beagle9 said:


> No one wants to control anyone,



Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.



> and show them that killing a perfectly healthy baby in the womb is sin.



Since specks obviously aren't people, that will take some doing. It's like trying to convince someone that the sky is green. Sure, it can be done with enough brainwashing, but it's not easy.


----------



## mamooth

beagle9 said:


> Takes that speck to create the process or formula for life,



Takes an unfertilized egg as well, so your logic goes boom, unless you want to claim that unfertilized eggs are people.


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've posted TONS of data for you,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you've posted various subjective opinion pieces, and then pretended they were TheTruth, when they were just someone's subjective opinion piece.
> 
> All of humanity over all of human history says personhood begins at birth. Your bizarre pro-life definitions are very recent historical revisionism. If you want to overturn such an established precedent, you'll need to do better than repeating "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" over and over.
> 
> Abortion was legal and common when the USA was founded, the founders knew it, and they didn't see a problem with it. Me, I'm with the founders and their respect for liberty.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but you are just full of it. One thing about you people, you sure are creative I'll give ya that... LOL


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Takes that speck to create the process or formula for life,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Takes an unfertilized egg as well, so your logic goes boom, unless you want to claim that unfertilized eggs are people.
Click to expand...

Moving your goal post now ??? Of course you are.


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to control anyone,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and show them that killing a perfectly healthy baby in the womb is sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since specks obviously aren't people, that will take some doing. It's like trying to convince someone that the sky is green. Sure, it can be done with enough brainwashing, but it's not easy.
Click to expand...

Becareful how you parce these post, as you could get into breaking the rules by attempting to mislead.


----------



## mamooth

beagle9 said:


> Moving your goal post now ??? Of course you are.



Pointing out how your argument is inconsistent and thus obviously dishonest and wrong is not goalpost moving on my part. It's tearing apart your dumb argument.

Your dumb standard was "if it's part of the formula for life, it's a human being". I pointed out by that standard, you have to define unfertilized eggs as people. You don't.

Oh. You're in a tough spot now. You either have to admit your argument was nonsense, or you need to move those goalposts waywayway down the field, something you just said only awful people do. Sucks to be you.

Of course, you do have a third option, that of hurling insults and running. Don't worry. Every pro-lifer does that, so you're not disappointing anyone.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious than new innocent life brimming with potential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you happily let human life die for your own selfish needs, that's obviously self-serving bullshit on your part. It's easy to talk a big game. And that's all you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cannot see that really has no place calling themselves a human being. Anyone who thinks that an unborn baby is a seed has failed biology more miserably than once thought possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at all the modern conveniences you partake in. You could use that money to save lives.....
Click to expand...



Meaning what, exactly?


----------



## mamooth

beagle9 said:


> Be careful how you parce these post, as you could get into breaking the rules by attempting to mislead.



Do get over yourself. Most of your words aren't worth repeating.


----------



## mamooth

Unkotare said:


> Meaning what, exactly?



What part of my English was unclear?

You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk, so the conclusion would be that your talk is self-serving bullshit.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious than new innocent life brimming with potential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you happily let human life die for your own selfish needs, that's obviously self-serving bullshit on your part. It's easy to talk a big game. And that's all you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cannot see that really has no place calling themselves a human being. Anyone who thinks that an unborn baby is a seed has failed biology more miserably than once thought possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at all the modern conveniences you partake in. You could use that money to save lives. You don't.
> 
> Your philosophy is "Life is more precious than anything, except for my own selfish conveniences". Just another sad control freak putting on a smarmy hypocrite routine.
Click to expand...




You need to clarify.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning what, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of my English was unclear?
> 
> You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk, so the conclusion would be that your talk is self-serving bullshit.
Click to expand...




How do you figure that I don’t walk the walk?


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> So a full-term baby minutes before delivery who is months OLDER than the premature babies outside the womb, in other words no different than a newborn, is a non-person to you, a piece of garbage that can be butchered no problem?



Well no. Nobody ever says or thinks such things, except pro-lifers (I'd say "morally depraved pro-lifers", but that's redundant). Their imaginations are stomach turning.



> I'm truly amazed that some of you are THAT blind or evil.  It is baffling to me, and it literally turns my stomach.



It appears you get off on it. Why else would you have typed it so gleefully? Most pro-lifers are pervs that way. Thoughts of gruesome abortions are like snuff porn to them.


----------



## mamooth

Unkotare said:


> How do you figure that I don’t walk the walk?



You're typing on a computer, right? Money for the computer and internet connections could be used to save lives. Shouldn't you be doing that, if life is the most precious important thing of all?


----------



## buttercup

mamooth said:


> No, you've posted various subjective opinion pieces, and then pretended they were TheTruth, when they were just someone's subjective opinion piece.
> 
> All of humanity over all of human history says personhood begins at birth. Your bizarre pro-life definitions are very recent historical revisionism. If you want to overturn such an established precedent, you'll need to do better than repeating "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" over and over.
> 
> Abortion was legal and common when the USA was founded, the founders knew it, and they didn't see a problem with it. Me, I'm with the founders and their respect for liberty.



You got that backwards, one of YOUR proaborts here posted an opinion piece from an msm site and passed it off as proof.  I posted tons of excerpts from biology and embryology textbooks, going back decades, as well as quotes from numerous scientists in this field and never once did they say "it's my opinion"  that human life begins at such and such time, from a scientific standpoint, human life begins at conception.

And at this point I think one would have to mentally retarded or living in a cave for decades to think that birth is when we become a person, because *premature babies have survived outside the womb as early as 21 weeks*.  By your inane logic, babies in the womb_ *farther along*_ and much more developed can be killed no problem while a younger premature baby outside the womb is a person.  Do you see how nonsensical and illogical that is?   You are using location as what determines our humanity, which is ridiculous and ignorant.


----------



## buttercup

mamooth said:


> Specks obviously aren't babies. My cat has a brain the size of a walnut, and even she knows that specks aren't babies. Speck. Baby. Speck. Baby. Different things, see?
> 
> Only crazy people and liars say specks are babies. Anyone making that claim needs to clarify which category they fall in.



Oh my word.  This is unbelievably stupid.   By the time most abortions occur (between 8-12 weeks) you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, little arms and legs..... to say the preborn is a "speck" is absolutely asinine.

It's only a few cells immediately after conception, and at that point most women who weren't planning a pregnancy don't even know they're pregnant.  They don't know until they've missed at least one period, sometimes two.  I'm truly shocked at how much blatant ignorance surrounds this topic.  It's either that or blatant dishonesty, not sure which.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that I don’t walk the walk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're typing on a computer, right? Money for the computer and internet connections could be used to save lives. Shouldn't you be doing that, if life is the most precious important thing of all?
Click to expand...





mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that I don’t walk the walk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're typing on a computer, right? Money for the computer and internet connections could be used to save lives. Shouldn't you be doing that, if life is the most precious important thing of all?
Click to expand...




Reductio absurdum 


You might as well cry hypocrite at anyone not fasting naked beneath the branches of a ficus religiosa while reciting the scriptures. 

You’d better have more than that.


----------



## buttercup

mamooth said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a full-term baby minutes before delivery who is months OLDER than the premature babies outside the womb, in other words no different than a newborn, is a non-person to you, a piece of garbage that can be butchered no problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no. Nobody ever says or thinks such things, except pro-lifers (I'd say "morally depraved pro-lifers", but that's redundant). Their imaginations are stomach turning.
Click to expand...


I don't know what you're talking about, but I had a reason for saying that.  Because we had a person here who kept repeating the phrase "my body my choice"  over and over, in other words her sole argument was bodily autonomy.  The reason I said what I did was because that argument collapses when you apply it to the entire 9 months of pregnancy.  So, I was trying to get her to see that by asking her that question.    Of course she never answered the question, as most of you cowards don't.



> It appears you get off on it. Why else would you have typed it so gleefully? Most pro-lifers are pervs that way. Thoughts of gruesome abortions are like snuff porn to them.



You are a disgusting individual.   In fact, it's interesting to me that this particular topic brings out the demonic in people.  It's almost as if something in you ghouls comes out whenever this topic comes up.  Not surprising since the origin of abortion is demonic.


----------



## mamooth

Unkotare said:


> Reductio absurdum



An appropriate response to your absurd hyperbole, which your were using as part of a smarmy moral superiority song and dance. PETA uses the same tactics.

Will you now agree that yes, human life is not the most precious thing, or are you sticking with your absurd hyperbole? Because if you are, my criticism is valid.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reductio absurdum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An appropriate response to your absurd hyperbole, which your were using as part of a smarmy moral superiority song and dance. PETA uses the same tactics.
> 
> Will you now agree that yes, human life is not the most precious thing, or are you sticking with your absurd hyperbole? Because if you are, my criticism is valid.
Click to expand...



What absurd hyperbole are you imagining?


Human life is obviously and manifestly the most precious thing. Noting this in no way validates your logical fallacy.


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> I don't know what you're talking about, but I had a reason for saying that.  Because we had a person here who kept repeating the phrase "my body my choice"  over and over, in other words her sole argument was bodily autonomy.  The reason I said what I did was because that argument collapses when you apply it to the entire 9 months of pregnancy.



Only if you assumed removal and killing are the same thing. As they're not, your argument collapses.



> You are a disgusting individual.



If you're going to dive into the gutter, and you usually do, you shouldn't squeal like a sissy when you get some back. That only makes you look cowardly and hypocritical. Heat, kitchen.



> In fact, it's interesting to me that this particular topic brings out the demonic in people.  It's almost as if something in you ghouls comes out whenever this topic comes up.  Not surprising since the origin of abortion is demonic.



See? More disgusting thoughts from you. It's clear that your mind is always on such topics. That's why decent people shun you.


----------



## mamooth

Unkotare said:


> Human life is obviously and manifestly the most precious thing. Noting this in no way validates your logical fallacy.



Of course it does. Yes, yes, life is the most precious thing evah, unless you have to be inconvenienced to preserve it. That demonstrates you're just spouting smarmy bullshit. 

PETA tells me the same smarmy crap about animal life. I correctly put pro-lifers in the same category as PETA because both groups use the same smarmy bullshit. Your mission is to tell me why I should believe you, but not PETA.


----------



## buttercup

mamooth said:


> Only if you assumed removal and killing are the same thing. As they're not, your argument collapses.



Again, I don't know what you're talking about.  Earlier in the thread I asked a  hypothetical question about whether or not it would be OK to butcher a full-term preborn baby minutes away from delivery for no reason except that the baby was still in the mother.   Nothing about "removal"  (which implies the baby was already dead, which is an entirely different matter.)   As I said, the bodily autonomy argument collapses, unless you support infanticide.



> If you're going to dive into the gutter, and you usually do, you shouldn't squeal like a sissy when you get some back. That only makes you look cowardly and hypocritical. Heat, kitchen.



Oh wow, I see you are a dishonest person too, and very sneaky.  YOU said something completely evil and disgusting and out of the blue to me, in response to something that wasn't even posted to you, and you didn't even understand the context.

YOUR post was disgusting, so I reply to you saying just that and then you try to accuse ME of being the bad guy?  Very sneaky and dishonest.  Your post  #2534 was uncalled for, so you're projecting by saying "heat, kitchen." 



> See? More disgusting thoughts from you. It's clear that your mind is always on such topics. That's why decent people shun you.



In response to what you said in post #2534.  If the shoe fits....  And I think you're confusing me with someone else, because I get along with most people here, even people on the other side of the political spectrum.  I don't even like to get into mudslinging and ugliness, I try to stay away from those types of interactions.  So quit lying in every single post.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human life is obviously and manifestly the most precious thing. Noting this in no way validates your logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. .....
Click to expand...



Your insistence doesn’t make it so. Logic doesn’t work like that.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human life is obviously and manifestly the most precious thing. Noting this in no way validates your logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mission is to tell me why I should believe you, but not PETA.
Click to expand...



There’s another logical fallacy.


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving your goal post now ??? Of course you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out how your argument is inconsistent and thus obviously dishonest and wrong is not goalpost moving on my part. It's tearing apart your dumb argument.
> 
> Your dumb standard was "if it's part of the formula for life, *it's a human being*". I pointed out by that standard, you have to define unfertilized eggs as people. You don't.
> 
> Oh. You're in a tough spot now. You either have to admit your argument was nonsense, or you need to move those goalposts waywayway down the field, something you just said only awful people do. Sucks to be you.
> 
> Of course, you do have a third option, that of hurling insults and running. Don't worry. Every pro-lifer does that, so you're not disappointing anyone.
Click to expand...

Why lie about what people say ?? I never said (your speck), is a human being yet, but yes it is definitely a formula or part of a formula for life.


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a full-term baby minutes before delivery who is months OLDER than the premature babies outside the womb, in other words no different than a newborn, is a non-person to you, a piece of garbage that can be butchered no problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no. Nobody ever says or thinks such things, except pro-lifers (I'd say "morally depraved pro-lifers", but that's redundant). Their imaginations are stomach turning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm truly amazed that some of you are THAT blind or evil.  It is baffling to me, and it literally turns my stomach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears you get off on it. Why else would you have typed it so gleefully? Most pro-lifers are pervs that way. Thoughts of gruesome abortions are like snuff porn to them.
Click to expand...

You just proved how sick and depraved you are with this post.... Get help.


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> never once did they say "it's my opinion"  that human life begins at such and such time, from a scientific standpoint, human life begins at conception.



As sperm, and egg are alive, life clearly does not begin at conception. That's not debatable by any rational person. LIfe clearly existed before conception, hence it can not begin at conception.

So, how will you deflect from that simple statement of fact? The world awaits.



> And at this point I think one would have to mentally retarded or living in a cave for decades to think that birth is when we become a person, because *premature babies have survived outside the womb as early as 21 weeks*.



A non-retard would understand that personhood is a legal and social definition, not a scientific or developmental one. Has your cult never mentioned that fact to you?



> By your inane logic, babies in the womb_ *farther along*_ and much more developed can be killed no problem while a younger premature baby outside the womb is a person.  Do you see how nonsensical and illogical that is?



As that's not my logic, it must be yours, so I agree that it's really stupid.

So, can you figure out where you went wrong here?

Here's a hint. Eagles aren't people, yet eagles are protected. Try to take it from there.



> You are using location as what determines our humanity, which is ridiculous and ignorant.



You're calling the whole human race over all of human history ignorant. That's quite the case of raging narcissism you have going there.


----------



## mamooth

beagle9 said:


> You just proved how sick and depraved you are with this post.... Get help.



Speaking of depraved, you pro-life goosesteppers actually think that living human being and a speck have equal moral worth. I don't think it's possible to get more dehumanizing that.

Pro-lifers are the ultimate eugenicists, reducing humanity to a DNA code. What happens when pro-lifers decide that someone's DNA code isn't up to snuff? You know they're salivating at the chance to define undesirable people as untermenschen.


----------



## SAYIT

mamooth said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.bb
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> 
> 
> Specks obviously aren't babies. My cat has a brain the size of a walnut, and even she knows that specks aren't babies. Speck. Baby. Speck. Baby. Different things, see? Only crazy people and liars say specks are babies. Anyone making that claim needs to clarify which category they fall in.
Click to expand...

Much like your cat, most lefties have a brain the size of a walnut. Again ... you can call that which we slaughter and vacuum from a woman's womb a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" or a "speck" but only brain-dead morons believe such silliness.

You qualify.


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> Again, I don't know what you're talking about.



Yes, that's the problem. I can see you lack the ability to grasp simple logic, and it won't be possible to dumb things down to a level that you can understand. If it's more than a cut and paste, you're helpless.



> Oh wow, I see you are a dishonest person too, and very sneaky.



It's not my fault that you've consistently been so vile, insulting and disgusting, so don't try to pin the blame on me. If you start acting like a decent human being, people will start treating you like one.


----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more precious than new innocent life brimming with potential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being that you happily let human life die for your own selfish needs, that's obviously self-serving bullshit on your part. It's easy to talk a big game. And that's all you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cannot see that really has no place calling themselves a human being. Anyone who thinks that an unborn baby is a seed has failed biology more miserably than once thought possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at all the modern conveniences you partake in. You could use that money to save lives. You don't.
> 
> Your philosophy is "Life is more precious than anything, except for my own selfish conveniences". Just another sad control freak putting on a smarmy hypocrite routine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one wants to control anyone, but only to promote life regardless of where that life is at any given time.  It's not the job of anyone to take a fully responsible person by the hand, and show them that killing a perfectly healthy baby in the womb is sin. They should already know this, but for some unGodly reason they don't or they are lying when they say that they don't. The job of pro-lifers is to educate, and then to councel if nessesary in the situation. If the pro-choice crowd bucks, then maybe laws could change minds if crimes are being committed.
Click to expand...


...and we are so lucky to have you show us the error of our ways and thinking, even though you have stated that it is a total waste of time..


----------



## SAYIT

buttercup said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specks obviously aren't babies. My cat has a brain the size of a walnut, and even she knows that specks aren't babies. Speck. Baby. Speck. Baby. Different things, see?
> 
> Only crazy people and liars say specks are babies. Anyone making that claim needs to clarify which category they fall in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  This is unbelievably stupid.   By the time most abortions occur (between 8-12 weeks) you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, little arms and legs..... to say the preborn is a "speck" is absolutely asinine.
> 
> It's only a few cells immediately after conception, and at that point most women who weren't planning a pregnancy don't even know they're pregnant.  They don't know until they've missed at least one period, sometimes two.  I'm truly shocked at how much blatant ignorance surrounds this topic.  It's either that or blatant dishonesty, not sure which.
Click to expand...

You must know by now our Mamooths do not care. The life and humanity of the babies we slaughter and flush are of no significance as they are merely "specks." To brain-dead leftards only their own lives are of any significance so kill the f-ing babies.


----------



## mamooth

SAYIT said:


> Much like your cat, most lefties have a brain the size of a walnut. Again ... you can call that which we slaughter and vacuum from a woman's womb a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" or a "speck" but only brain-dead morons believe such silliness.



You're lying when you claim you think abortion is murder. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. All pro-lifers are liars when they say such crazy things.

The question is _why_ do they lie.

The answer is that it's a combination of things.

Religious mania plays one part, a devotion to their Taliban-like death cults.

The fact that pro-lifers get a sick tingle up their legs from hating plays another part. They get off on being control freaks.

Mostly, however, it's mindless tribalism on the part of pro-lifers. Their corrupt political cult has told them abortion is bad, and they don't have the brains or guts necessary to disagree. Standing up for morality and liberty would lead to expulsion from their cult, and to conservative herd animals, expulsion from the herd is like a death sentence.


----------



## Natural Citizen

mamooth said:


> Abortion was legal and common when the USA was founded, the founders knew it, and they didn't see a problem with it. Me, I'm with the founders and their respect for liberty.



You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Laws in America criminalized abortion from the very beginning.

A fundamental right to abortion exists neither in the Constitution or its amendments. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty, likely ignorance, to claim otherwise.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> never once did they say "it's my opinion"  that human life begins at such and such time, from a scientific standpoint, human life begins at conception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As sperm, and egg are alive, life clearly does not begin at conception. That's not debatable by any rational person. LIfe clearly existed before conception, hence it can not begin at conception.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...




That Is a tragically idiotic failure to understand the most basic biology.


----------



## buttercup

mamooth said:


> As sperm, and egg are alive, life clearly does not begin at conception. That's not debatable by any rational person. LIfe clearly existed before conception, hence it can not begin at conception.
> 
> So, how will you deflect from that simple statement of fact? The world awaits.



Sigh.  Let's go through this.  It's not about something being "alive" in the sense that you have in mind.  The z/e/f is more than just "alive" - we're  talking about an actual human being, simply in the beginning stages of life.   I'm going to post an excerpt again that I posted to someone else.  Please read it:

*Basic human embryological facts*

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — *the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). *That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; *they have been changed into a single, whole human being.* During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person



> A non-retard would understand that personhood is a legal and social definition, not a scientific or developmental one. Has your cult never mentioned that fact to you?



I never claimed that "personhood" was scientific. I didn't use that word. I have been talking about the beginning of our lives as a* human being*, a member of the human species. SCIENCE tells us that.  Maybe you weren't here earlier on this thread, but if you want, I'll re-post a ton of quotes for you from biology / embryology textbooks, scientists in this field, etc.



> As that's not my logic, it must be yours, so I agree that it's really stupid.
> 
> So, can you figure out where you went wrong here?
> 
> Here's a hint. Eagles aren't people, yet eagles are protected. Try to take it from there.



What the hell are you talking about? You are all over the place, and you're as clear as mud.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but BIRTH seems to be your point at which you believe the preborn baby suddenly has value and should no longer be killed. Correct? In other words, at any point before birth, the preborn is still killable?  If that is not your position, then clarify it, pls.



> You're calling the whole human race over all of human history ignorant. That's quite the case of raging narcissism you have going there.



Nope, I wasn't doing that. I'm sure even way back before there were ultrasounds, there were probably at least SOME people who intuitively knew that the preborn baby is a little human being, with value, BEFORE his head pops out of the birth canal.

But even if that wasn't the case, even if the entire world considered the birth canal a magical place that suddenly turns a worthless clump of tissue, a dispsoable piece of garbage, into a precious, valuable brand new baby.... that STILL wouldn't make it right.  At one point, most people thought slavery was OK.  The law said it was OK.  So, nice logical fallacy there, I believe it's called _*argumentum ad populum.*_


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> Oh my word.  This is unbelievably stupid.   By the time most abortions occur (between 8-12 weeks) you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, little arms and legs..... to say the preborn is a "speck" is absolutely asinine.



Brains waves? Who feeds you this crap? Prof-lifers are all hilariously ignorant of biology. (Here's the hint you'll need, dumbass. Neural activity is not "brain waves". Even plants have neural activity. Stick an EEG in them, you'll get a reading.)

Second, as I pointed out before, you're an imbecile on the topic of logic. I'll have to go very slowly for you.

It's your idiot claims that life begins at conception

If I knock that down, I knock down the whole tower of pro-life bullshit.

I knocked it down with the simple observation that specks aren't people.

Now, you're left flailing. You've got to move the goalposts, which makes it obvious that you're just making up self-serving bullshit. Sucks to be you.

So, where are you going to move those goalposts to?

By the way, nice pro-life PC revisionism with "the preborn". Standard English isn't kind to your cult, so it had to make up some speshul PC cult lingo.


----------



## buttercup

mamooth said:


> Yes, that's the problem. I can see you lack the ability to grasp simple logic, and it won't be possible to dumb things down to a level that you can understand. If it's more than a cut and paste, you're helpless.
> 
> It's not my fault that you've consistently been so vile, insulting and disgusting, so don't try to pin the blame on me. If you start acting like a decent human being, people will start treating you like one.



Wow, wow, wow.  Talk about projecting!  The person who made the most disgusting, horrible, sick comment about me is saying I'VE been vile and disgusting? What for?  For trying to get you to understand basic biology?  For calling you out on your disgusting comment in post #2534?    I thought some of the other proaborts on this thread were bad, you're making them look like saints, with your evil behavior.


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> Sigh.  Let's go through this.



Sure. You tried to make your own speshul PC version of "alive", where living things aren't living if you say the living thing isn't really living.

That is, you're just lying about language. I've got to hand it to you, I haven't seen any pro-lifer stoop that low before, so at least you get points for originality. However, as you're still lying, your argument there is still a big steaming pile. Sperm and egg are still alive, so live clearly does not being at conception.



> I'm going to post an excerpt again that I posted to someone else.  Please read it:



What about "That's a dumb subjective opinion" is confusing you here? The fact that you share the dumb subjective opinion doesn't make the opinion any less dumb or subjective. The terms "person" or "human being" are social and legal constructs, so those trying to define them by development are engaging in dishonest linguistic revisionism.



> I never claimed that "personhood" was scientific. I didn't use that word. I have been talking about the beginning of our lives as a* human being*, a member of the human species.



They're the same thing.



> SCIENCE tells us that.



No, a dumb subjective opinion you keep copying says that. Nobody outside of your cult cares.



> Maybe you weren't here earlier on this thread, but if you want, I'll re-post a ton of quotes for you from biology / embryology textbooks, scientists in this field, etc.



And they'll all be dumb subjective opinions. The fact that you can find many dumb subjective opinions does not make them less dumb or less subjective.



> What the hell are you talking about? You are all over the place, and you're as clear as mud.



With the eagle example, I'm pointing out that something doesn't have to be a person to get protections. I really tried to make you think there, but you weren't up to the task.



> Correct me if I'm wrong, but BIRTH seems to be your point at which you believe the preborn baby suddenly has value and should no longer be killed. Correct? In other words, at any point before birth, the preborn is still killable?  If that is not your position, then clarify it, pls.



No, it's not my opinion. Your cult has done a number on you, feeding you nonsense to get you to hate.

I think a fetus increases in value as it grows. All non-liars will agree they feel that way as well. Everyone thinks specks are worthless, and that a 9-month fetus is valuable.



> Nope, I wasn't doing that. I'm sure even way back before there were ultrasounds, there were probably at least SOME people who intuitively knew that the preborn baby is a little human being, with value, BEFORE his head pops out of the birth canal.



Sure, crazy people have always existed.



> But even if that wasn't the case, even if the entire world considered the birth canal a magical place that suddenly turns a worthless clump of tissue, a dispsoable piece of garbage, into a precious, valuable brand new baby.... that STILL wouldn't make it right.



Ah yes, raving about magical birth canals, standard pro-life PC lingo.



> At one point, most people thought slavery was OK.



And today, pro-lifers still think slavery is okay, for pregnant women. 

We fight for liberty, and that's just too alien for you to understand.


----------



## buttercup

mamooth said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  This is unbelievably stupid.   By the time most abortions occur (between 8-12 weeks) you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, little arms and legs..... to say the preborn is a "speck" is absolutely asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brains waves? Who feeds you this crap? Prof-lifers are all hilariously ignorant of biology. (Here's the hint you'll need, dumbass. Neural activity is not "brain waves". Even plants have neural activity. Stick an EEG in them, you'll get a reading.)
> 
> Second, as I pointed out before, you're an imbecile on the topic of logic. I'll have to go very slowly for you.
> 
> It's your idiot claims that life begins at conception
> 
> If I knock that down, I knock down the whole tower of pro-life bullshit.
> 
> I knocked it down with the simple observation that specks aren't people.
> 
> Now, you're left flailing. You've got to move the goalposts, which makes it obvious that you're just making up self-serving bullshit. Sucks to be you.
> 
> So, where are you going to move those goalposts to?
> 
> By the way, nice pro-life PC revisionism with "the preborn". Standard English isn't kind to your cult, so it had to make up some speshul PC cult lingo.
Click to expand...

You know, I was going to reply to every ignorant or misguided statement you made above, point by point.  But it's not even worth my time.  You are clearly clueless on basic biology, and you don't seem like the type who WANTS to learn, like your cohorts here, you appear to be willfully ignorant.

And AGAIN, liar, when most abortions occur, it's LONG PAST the point of being a "speck" -  you have a beating heart, a little body and face, little arms and legs.  To say its a "speck" makes you either woefully ignorant or a blatant liar.

[/QUOTE]


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the problem. I can see you lack the ability to grasp simple logic, .....
Click to expand...




 You, of all people, are in no position to say that to anyone.


----------



## SAYIT

mamooth said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like your cat, most lefties have a brain the size of a walnut. Again ... you can call that which we slaughter and vacuum from a woman's womb a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" or a "speck" but only brain-dead morons believe such silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying when you claim you think abortion is murder. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. All pro-lifers are liars when they say such crazy things. The question is _why_ do they lie...
Click to expand...

 I absolutely believe abortion is murder and you are lying as you pretend abortion is not. No one with a triple-digit IQ wonders why -as you already mentioned - you have a brain the size of a walnut.


----------



## mamooth

Natural Citizen said:


> You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Laws in America criminalized abortion from the very beginning.



Nonsense. Abortion wasn't criminalized until the late 1800's, as part of the control freak puritan kick of the time, but also because abortion was a dangerous practice at the time.


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> Wow, wow, wow.  Talk about projecting!



I'm really not interesting in watching you try to justify why you get to hurl insults with no response. Hypocrisy among pro-lifers is so common as to be boring.


----------



## SAYIT

Natural Citizen said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion was legal and common when the USA was founded, the founders knew it, and they didn't see a problem with it. Me, I'm with the founders and their respect for liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Laws in America criminalized abortion from the very beginning.
> 
> A fundamental right to abortion exists neither in the Constitution or its amendments. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty, likely ignorance, to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

 
A spot-on description of our Mamooths ... the height of intellectual dishonesty and just as likely monumental ignorance.


----------



## mamooth

SAYIT said:


> I absolutely believe abortion is murder and you are lying as you pretend abortion is not. No one with a triple-digit IQ wonders why ... you have, as you already mentioned - a brain the size of a walnut.



How sweet, fresh meat.

Thought experiment time. Any pro-lifers, feel free to answer.

You pass a fertility clinic. It's on fire.

You can rush inside and save one woman, or you can save a freezer filled with 1000 frozen embryos, all scheduled for implantation in willing host mothers. You can't save both. If you try to save both, everyone dies. 

So, which do you save?

Now, square that with your claimed belief that you think embryos are the moral equivalent of people.


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> As sperm, and egg are alive, life clearly does not begin at conception. That's not debatable by any rational person. LIfe clearly existed before conception, hence it can not begin at conception...
> 
> 
> 
> That Is a tragically idiotic failure to understand the most basic biology.
Click to expand...

That is convenient realty to leftards. Our Mamooths do not care about biology or humanity. They are concerned only with their leftarded ideology and truth & facts be damned. Certainly the "specks" we abort are just collateral damage in their battle to destroy.


----------



## Unkotare

What happened to the “walking the walk” fallacy?


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> You know, I was going to reply to every ignorant or misguided statement you made above, point by point.  But it's not even worth my time.  You are clearly clueless on basic biology, and you don't seem like the type who WANTS to learn, like your cohorts here, you appear to be willfully ignorant.



And there you go, running for the hills, screaming hysterical insults to cover your tear-streaked retreat. Don't worry. Pro-lifers always run. Your running was expected, so you didn't disappoint anyone.



> And AGAIN, liar, when most abortions occur, it's LONG PAST the point of being a "speck" -



Never said or implied otherwise. I told you the purpose of the statement, and you cut and ran. That demonstrates I done spanked you good, in front of everyone. Time to carve another notch.



> you have a beating heart, a little body and face, little arms and legs.  To say its a "speck" makes you either woefully ignorant or a blatant liar.



And I didn't say that, which makes you a liar.

Think about it. If you can't support TheCause without lying, what does that say about TheCause?


----------



## mamooth

Unkotare said:


> What happened to the “walking the walk” fallacy?



I was being kind by just leaving you flailing there. Everyone gets it. You wanted a reason to play the smarmy moralist, without needing to do anything but flap your gums, so you made up a story about how precious life is.

Now, since you jumped in, answer the burning clinic scenario, and square that with your professed opinion that nothing is more precious than any kind of human life.


----------



## buttercup

SAYIT said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> As sperm, and egg are alive, life clearly does not begin at conception. That's not debatable by any rational person. LIfe clearly existed before conception, hence it can not begin at conception...
> 
> 
> 
> That Is a tragically idiotic failure to understand the most basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is convenient realty to leftards. Our Mamooths do not care about biology or humanity. They are concerned only with their leftarded ideology and truth & facts be damned. Certainly the "specks" we abort are just collateral damage in their battle to destroy.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's a left-right thing.  Like I posted before, that sends the message that the pro-life cause is only a conservative or Christian thing, which it isn't.  There are a growing number of secular and non-traditional prolifers, because as technology shows us the baby in the womb, more people are realizing how unethical and wrong it is, to kill the most innocent, vulnerable among us, for the sake of convenience or selfishness.

So I don't think it's a left/right thing, but I am starting to think it's a good vs evil thing.  Interestingly, the angry, more vocal proaborts appear to be possessed, or at least demonically influenced.  Like a certain someone around here.


----------



## mamooth

SAYIT said:


> That is convenient realty to leftards. Our Mamooths do not care about biology or humanity. They are concerned only with their leftarded ideology and truth & facts be damned. Certainly the "specks" we abort are just collateral damage in their battle to destroy.



PETA freaks say that too, which is why everyone laughs at them as well. They're just as dishonest as pro-lifers. They get a sick thrill from hating, so they make up reasons to hate.

I find it difficult to differentiate between PETA freaks and pro-lifers, being that they use exactly the same logic. I have to resort to the sniff test. PETA freaks almost always have better hygiene.


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> I don't think it's a left-right thing.  Like I posted before, that sends the message that the pro-life cause is only a conservative or Christian thing, which it isn't.  There are a growing number of secular and non-traditional prolifers, because as technology shows us the baby in the womb, more people are realizing how unethical and wrong it is, to kill the most innocent, vulnerable among us, for the sake of convenience or selfishness.
> 
> So I don't think it's a left/right thing, but I am starting to think it's a good vs evil thing.  Interestingly, the angry, more vocal proaborts appear to be possessed, or at least demonically influenced.  Like a certain someone around here.



And there you go, calling people selfish and evil and demonic, and then whimpering about insults.

Given what a disgusting hypocrite you are, how do you manage to look in the mirror without puking? If I acted as badly as you do, I'd off myself out of shame. But then, I have a conscience.


----------



## SAYIT

buttercup said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> As sperm, and egg are alive, life clearly does not begin at conception. That's not debatable by any rational person. LIfe clearly existed before conception, hence it can not begin at conception...
> 
> 
> 
> That Is a tragically idiotic failure to understand the most basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is convenient realty to leftards. Our Mamooths do not care about biology or humanity. They are concerned only with their leftarded ideology and truth & facts be damned. Certainly the "specks" we abort are just collateral damage in their battle to destroy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's a left-right thing.  Like I posted before, that sends the message that the pro-life cause is only a conservative or Christian thing, which it isn't.  There are a growing number of secular and non-traditional prolifers, because as technology shows us the baby in the womb, more people are realizing how unethical and wrong it is, to kill the most innocent, vulnerable among us, for the sake of convenience or selfishness.
> 
> So I don't think it's a left/right thing, but I am starting to think it's a good vs evil thing.  Interestingly, the angry, more vocal proaborts appear to be possessed, or at least demonically influenced.  Like a certain someone around here.
Click to expand...

No ... the message is the kill-the-babies ideology is pretty much a leftard thing.


----------



## mamooth

SAYIT said:


> No ... the message is the kill-the-babies ideology is pretty much a leftard thing.



I'm still waiting for your reply on the burning clinic scenario.

You seem reluctant to give an answer. Why is that?

No matter. I'll check back tomorrow and see if any pro-lifers can locate their ... courage.


----------



## buttercup

SAYIT said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> As sperm, and egg are alive, life clearly does not begin at conception. That's not debatable by any rational person. LIfe clearly existed before conception, hence it can not begin at conception...
> 
> 
> 
> That Is a tragically idiotic failure to understand the most basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is convenient realty to leftards. Our Mamooths do not care about biology or humanity. They are concerned only with their leftarded ideology and truth & facts be damned. Certainly the "specks" we abort are just collateral damage in their battle to destroy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's a left-right thing.  Like I posted before, that sends the message that the pro-life cause is only a conservative or Christian thing, which it isn't.  There are a growing number of secular and non-traditional prolifers, because as technology shows us the baby in the womb, more people are realizing how unethical and wrong it is, to kill the most innocent, vulnerable among us, for the sake of convenience or selfishness.
> 
> So I don't think it's a left/right thing, but I am starting to think it's a good vs evil thing.  Interestingly, the angry, more vocal proaborts appear to be possessed, or at least demonically influenced.  Like a certain someone around here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ... the message is the kill-the-babies ideology is pretty much a leftard thing.
Click to expand...


If I'm not mistaken, something like 34 percent of Democrats are pro-life.  And like I said, there are a growing number of non-traditional pro-lifers.   I think if we want more people to be pro-life, we can't make it into a left-right thing, because it's really not. And it hurts the cause.  It's more like a decent/responsible/compassionate vs selfish/irresponsible/callous thing.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to the “walking the walk” fallacy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...You wanted a reason to play the smarmy moralist, without needing to do anything but flap your gums, so you made up a story about how precious life is...
Click to expand...



“Made up a story”? About the most inherently and universally understood truth of the human condition? What the hell is wrong with you?


----------



## buttercup

mamooth said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's a left-right thing.  Like I posted before, that sends the message that the pro-life cause is only a conservative or Christian thing, which it isn't.  There are a growing number of secular and non-traditional prolifers, because as technology shows us the baby in the womb, more people are realizing how unethical and wrong it is, to kill the most innocent, vulnerable among us, for the sake of convenience or selfishness.
> 
> So I don't think it's a left/right thing, but I am starting to think it's a good vs evil thing.  Interestingly, the angry, more vocal proaborts appear to be possessed, or at least demonically influenced.  Like a certain someone around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go, calling people selfish and evil and demonic, and then whimpering about insults.
> 
> Given what a disgusting hypocrite you are, how do you manage to look in the mirror without puking? If I acted as badly as you do, I'd off myself out of shame. But then, I have a conscience.
Click to expand...


You're projecting again. You do that a lot.  And yes, I stand by what I said about militant proaborts appearing to be demonic. I could post video footage, if you want.    And yes, it IS selfish to put one's convenience  first, before the life of one's own child, who is not at fault.  But that's my view, and if it bothers you so much, maybe that means something?  

I have other things to do now, so I'll let others deal with you.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I guess that I am demonic, too. Sort of like Smurfs:


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOD tells me when life begins. *
> "_For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be _"(Psalm 139:13-16).
> Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.
Click to expand...


“...questions that cannot be answered.”

Such as: Does God exist?

Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.

Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.

You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

mamooth said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to control anyone,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.
Click to expand...


Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

mamooth said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like your cat, most lefties have a brain the size of a walnut. Again ... you can call that which we slaughter and vacuum from a woman's womb a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" or a "speck" but only brain-dead morons believe such silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying when you claim you think abortion is murder. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. All pro-lifers are liars when they say such crazy things.
> 
> The question is _why_ do they lie.
> 
> The answer is that it's a combination of things.
> 
> Religious mania plays one part, a devotion to their Taliban-like death cults.
> 
> The fact that pro-lifers get a sick tingle up their legs from hating plays another part. They get off on being control freaks.
Click to expand...


You propose to control the fate of an unborn child. What’s the difference?

Never kid yourself: This is not a debate about control-vs.-non-control, it’s about which form of control is morally sound and which is not.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ghost of a Rider said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like your cat, most lefties have a brain the size of a walnut. Again ... you can call that which we slaughter and vacuum from a woman's womb a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" or a "speck" but only brain-dead morons believe such silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying when you claim you think abortion is murder. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. All pro-lifers are liars when they say such crazy things.
> 
> The question is _why_ do they lie.
> 
> The answer is that it's a combination of things.
> 
> Religious mania plays one part, a devotion to their Taliban-like death cults.
> 
> The fact that pro-lifers get a sick tingle up their legs from hating plays another part. They get off on being control freaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You propose to control the fate of an unborn child. What’s the difference?
> 
> Never kid yourself: This is not a debate about control-vs.-non-control, it’s about which form of control is morally sound and which is not.
Click to expand...



Whose moral compass are we going to follow?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

mamooth said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Let's go through this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You tried to make your own speshul PC version of "alive", where living things aren't living if you say the living thing isn't really living.
> 
> That is, you're just lying about language. I've got to hand it to you, I haven't seen any pro-lifer stoop that low before, so at least you get points for originality. However, as you're still lying, your argument there is still a big steaming pile. Sperm and egg are still alive, so live clearly does not being at conception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to post an excerpt again that I posted to someone else.  Please read it:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about "That's a dumb subjective opinion" is confusing you here? The fact that you share the dumb subjective opinion doesn't make the opinion any less dumb or subjective. The terms "person" or "human being" are social and legal constructs, so those trying to define them by development are engaging in dishonest linguistic revisionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that "personhood" was scientific. I didn't use that word. I have been talking about the beginning of our lives as a* human being*, a member of the human species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're the same thing.
Click to expand...


If they’re the same thing then you’re saying that “human being” is a social/cultural construct.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like your cat, most lefties have a brain the size of a walnut. Again ... you can call that which we slaughter and vacuum from a woman's womb a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" or a "speck" but only brain-dead morons believe such silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying when you claim you think abortion is murder. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. All pro-lifers are liars when they say such crazy things.
> 
> The question is _why_ do they lie.
> 
> The answer is that it's a combination of things.
> 
> Religious mania plays one part, a devotion to their Taliban-like death cults.
> 
> The fact that pro-lifers get a sick tingle up their legs from hating plays another part. They get off on being control freaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You propose to control the fate of an unborn child. What’s the difference?
> 
> Never kid yourself: This is not a debate about control-vs.-non-control, it’s about which form of control is morally sound and which is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whose moral compass are we going to follow?
Click to expand...


Speaking for myself, it comes down to owning your choices. Personal responsibility is paramount to me and is part of the reason I have a problem with abortion. 

Abortion is nothing more than erasing a mistake with no forethought as to how this life may be sacred and meaningful to someone, even if it’s not the biological mother.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like your cat, most lefties have a brain the size of a walnut. Again ... you can call that which we slaughter and vacuum from a woman's womb a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" or a "speck" but only brain-dead morons believe such silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying when you claim you think abortion is murder. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. All pro-lifers are liars when they say such crazy things.
> 
> The question is _why_ do they lie.
> 
> The answer is that it's a combination of things.
> 
> Religious mania plays one part, a devotion to their Taliban-like death cults.
> 
> The fact that pro-lifers get a sick tingle up their legs from hating plays another part. They get off on being control freaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You propose to control the fate of an unborn child. What’s the difference?
> 
> Never kid yourself: This is not a debate about control-vs.-non-control, it’s about which form of control is morally sound and which is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whose moral compass are we going to follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself, it comes down to owning your choices. Personal responsibility is paramount to me and is part of the reason I have a problem with abortion.
> 
> Abortion is nothing more than erasing a mistake with no forethought as to how this life may be sacred and meaningful to someone, even if it’s not the biological mother.
Click to expand...


That is why I leave the door open for the mother to be able to give the child up for adoption OR have it taken and put into foster care if she can't afford it.  If women want to make this idiotic argument about _"their body and their baby_," then let them be accountable for it.  

If we are going to decide the issue based upon morality, I'm just trying to find out whose morality.


----------



## beagle9

buttercup said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  This is unbelievably stupid.   By the time most abortions occur (between 8-12 weeks) you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, little arms and legs..... to say the preborn is a "speck" is absolutely asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brains waves? Who feeds you this crap? Prof-lifers are all hilariously ignorant of biology. (Here's the hint you'll need, dumbass. Neural activity is not "brain waves". Even plants have neural activity. Stick an EEG in them, you'll get a reading.)
> 
> Second, as I pointed out before, you're an imbecile on the topic of logic. I'll have to go very slowly for you.
> 
> It's your idiot claims that life begins at conception
> 
> If I knock that down, I knock down the whole tower of pro-life bullshit.
> 
> I knocked it down with the simple observation that specks aren't people.
> 
> Now, you're left flailing. You've got to move the goalposts, which makes it obvious that you're just making up self-serving bullshit. Sucks to be you.
> 
> So, where are you going to move those goalposts to?
> 
> By the way, nice pro-life PC revisionism with "the preborn". Standard English isn't kind to your cult, so it had to make up some speshul PC cult lingo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I was going to reply to every ignorant or misguided statement you made above, point by point.  But it's not even worth my time.  You are clearly clueless on basic biology, and you don't seem like the type who WANTS to learn, like your cohorts here, you appear to be willfully ignorant.
> 
> And AGAIN, liar, when most abortions occur, it's LONG PAST the point of being a "speck" -  you have a beating heart, a little body and face, little arms and legs.  To say its a "speck" makes you either woefully ignorant or a blatant liar.
Click to expand...







[/QUOTE]


Makes mammoth evil I guess.. No other explanation. Evilness is growing bigger and bigger in this country, and all around this world. Most know it and see it (I think), otherwise that things are getting bad or worse, so either some are part of these problem's or they are part of the solution's. It's easy to see who is part of these problems today, and who are the ones trying to help.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  This is unbelievably stupid.   By the time most abortions occur (between 8-12 weeks) you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, little arms and legs..... to say the preborn is a "speck" is absolutely asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brains waves? Who feeds you this crap? Prof-lifers are all hilariously ignorant of biology. (Here's the hint you'll need, dumbass. Neural activity is not "brain waves". Even plants have neural activity. Stick an EEG in them, you'll get a reading.)
> 
> Second, as I pointed out before, you're an imbecile on the topic of logic. I'll have to go very slowly for you.
> 
> It's your idiot claims that life begins at conception
> 
> If I knock that down, I knock down the whole tower of pro-life bullshit.
> 
> I knocked it down with the simple observation that specks aren't people.
> 
> Now, you're left flailing. You've got to move the goalposts, which makes it obvious that you're just making up self-serving bullshit. Sucks to be you.
> 
> So, where are you going to move those goalposts to?
> 
> By the way, nice pro-life PC revisionism with "the preborn". Standard English isn't kind to your cult, so it had to make up some speshul PC cult lingo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I was going to reply to every ignorant or misguided statement you made above, point by point.  But it's not even worth my time.  You are clearly clueless on basic biology, and you don't seem like the type who WANTS to learn, like your cohorts here, you appear to be willfully ignorant.
> 
> And AGAIN, liar, when most abortions occur, it's LONG PAST the point of being a "speck" -  you have a beating heart, a little body and face, little arms and legs.  To say its a "speck" makes you either woefully ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Makes mammoth evil I guess.. No other explanation. Evilness is growing bigger and bigger in this country, and all around this world. Most know it and see it (I think), otherwise that things are getting bad or worse, so either some are part of these problem's or they are part of the solution's. It's easy to see who is part of these problems today, and who are the ones trying to help.[/QUOTE]
Then work to end abortion consistent with the Constitution, the rule of law, and a woman’s right to privacy.

Indeed, no one opposes anyone seeking to end the practice, that’s not the point of conflict – the conflict manifests when those hostile to abortion seek to end the practice by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  This is unbelievably stupid.   By the time most abortions occur (between 8-12 weeks) you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, little arms and legs..... to say the preborn is a "speck" is absolutely asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brains waves? Who feeds you this crap? Prof-lifers are all hilariously ignorant of biology. (Here's the hint you'll need, dumbass. Neural activity is not "brain waves". Even plants have neural activity. Stick an EEG in them, you'll get a reading.)
> 
> Second, as I pointed out before, you're an imbecile on the topic of logic. I'll have to go very slowly for you.
> 
> It's your idiot claims that life begins at conception
> 
> If I knock that down, I knock down the whole tower of pro-life bullshit.
> 
> I knocked it down with the simple observation that specks aren't people.
> 
> Now, you're left flailing. You've got to move the goalposts, which makes it obvious that you're just making up self-serving bullshit. Sucks to be you.
> 
> So, where are you going to move those goalposts to?
> 
> By the way, nice pro-life PC revisionism with "the preborn". Standard English isn't kind to your cult, so it had to make up some speshul PC cult lingo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I was going to reply to every ignorant or misguided statement you made above, point by point.  But it's not even worth my time.  You are clearly clueless on basic biology, and you don't seem like the type who WANTS to learn, like your cohorts here, you appear to be willfully ignorant.
> 
> And AGAIN, liar, when most abortions occur, it's LONG PAST the point of being a "speck" -  you have a beating heart, a little body and face, little arms and legs.  To say its a "speck" makes you either woefully ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Makes mammoth evil I guess.. No other explanation. Evilness is growing bigger and bigger in this country, and all around this world. Most know it and see it (I think), otherwise that things are getting bad or worse, so either some are part of these problem's or they are part of the solution's. It's easy to see who is part of these problems today, and who are the ones trying to help.
Click to expand...

Then work to end abortion consistent with the Constitution, the rule of law, and a woman’s right to privacy.

Indeed, no one opposes anyone seeking to end the practice, that’s not the point of conflict – the conflict manifests when those hostile to abortion seek to end the practice by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.[/QUOTE]


To end the practice would of course decrease the size of government having to deal with such a thing, and therefore place it back into the medical community where it belongs. Of course that community will continue to be regulated, and laws enforced because in a lot of ways it has over stepped it's boundaries over time (parts of it), and therefore those parts had created the problem to begin with over time. Government is usually dragged into these situations, and then it does a crappy job of fixing them in a correct way. Evidence of that is everywhere these days.


----------



## SAYIT

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Then work to end abortion consistent with the Constitution, the rule of law, and a woman’s right to privacy. Indeed, no one opposes anyone seeking to end the practice, that’s not the point of conflict – the conflict manifests when those hostile to abortion seek to end the practice by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.


You were good until you hit pro-life as somehow "increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty." In fact, it is our big, greasy central gov't which has imposed onerous restrictions on how individual states may deal with domestic social policy issues. Each state needs to recover the authority WashDC has gradually usurped so that the will and values of their citizens can be reflected by their laws. Missouri and NY are not the same and one-size does not fit all.


----------



## LilOlLady

By *genocide*, the murder of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, *"euthanasia,"* starvation, exposure, *medical experiments,* and terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps, the Nazis murdered from 15,003,000 to 31,595,000 people, most likely *20,946,000 men, women, handicapped, aged, sick, prisoners of war, forced laborers, camp inmates, critics, homosexuals, Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Germans, Czechs, Italians, Poles, French, Ukrainians, and many others*. Among them, *1,000,000 were children* under eighteen years of age. And none of these monstrous figures even include *civilian and military combat or war-deaths.*

*21st Century Holocaus*t. The *US government *has legally since *Roe vs Wade* has allowed the *extermination* of innocent babies.* Planned Parenthood* is the same as *extermination camps* like *"death camps"  "Killing Centers"* known in Nazi camps, such as Auschwitz and Majdanek,   Note that the abortions in the counters on this site are almost all *“surgical abortions”.*   We have made no attempt to tally the totals for *“chemically-induced abortions”* here.  The Pharmacists for Life organization estimates that there have been approximately *250 million babies *aborted chemically since 1973 in the USA: *http://www.pfli.org/*


----------



## LilOlLady

Everyone including the unborn baby is entitled to "*Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" We were all once that *unborn* that are being murdered and denied "*Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" I was once an embryo and a fetus in the process of being born. I did not get here by creations out of my mother's womb. I was once an egg. You, pro-choice people, act as if you got here in a different way other than those you chose to abort, *YOU CANNOT MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING. I was something from conception and before I was an egg. Every part of my body is alive, even the unborn in the womb. IF it is attached to you it is alive. 
Talking to you "pro-abortionist" is like talking to a brick wall. And you are not pro-choice you are pro-abortionist that you are afraid to use.*


----------



## LilOlLady

Ghost of a Rider said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> 
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...questions that cannot be answered.”
> 
> Such as: Does God exist?
> 
> Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.
> 
> Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.
> 
> You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.
Click to expand...

Think. If you are alive then what is part of your body is alive also. Whether it be cancer, a growth (a fetus) your hair, toenails, etc but when you die all parts of you die. The hair stops growing and the *fetus inside you dies *also because it is not getting nourishment and oxygen from you. So logic would tell any *intelligent being* that the fetus is alive. *IF IT IS GROWING IN YOUR BODY, IT IS ALIVE.*


----------



## mamooth

LilOlLady said:


> *I was something from conception and before I was an egg.*


*
*
Your idiot standard makes no sense, as it would require that eggs be people too. After all, that egg developed into you.

As your definition is so inconsistent, it's clearly self-serving nonsense. You faked that definition so you'd have a reason to justify your sick control freak agenda.

What, you thought it wasn't obvious?


----------



## mamooth

SAYIT said:


> Each state needs to recover the authority WashDC has gradually usurped so that the will and values of their citizens can be reflected by their laws. Missouri and NY are not the same and one-size does not fit all.



By that reasoning, states should be allowed to legalize slavery, if that reflects the values of the citizens.

As your line of reasoning leads to morally reprehensible results, your line of reasoning is immoral. Basic liberty can not be removed by mob rule.


----------



## mamooth

Ghost of a Rider said:


> If they’re the same thing then you’re saying that “human being” is a social/cultural construct.



Yes, I'm saying that, because that's the case. "Person", "human being" and "a human (noun)" are synonyms.


----------



## BWK

mamooth said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each state needs to recover the authority WashDC has gradually usurped so that the will and values of their citizens can be reflected by their laws. Missouri and NY are not the same and one-size does not fit all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that reasoning, states should be allowed to legalize slavery, if that reflects the values of the citizens.
> 
> As your line of reasoning leads to morally reprehensible results, your line of reasoning is immoral. Basic liberty can not be removed by mob rule.
Click to expand...

And the Right was always about less government. Lol!


----------



## mamooth

Unkotare said:


> “Made up a story”? About the most inherently and universally understood truth of the human condition?



That's another bizarre story on your part. When my point is you're just making up crazy stories, making up more crazy stories is probably not your best choice of options.



> What the hell is wrong with you?



Don't you have some super-awesome-precious life to save? After all, you say it's the most super-important-thing evah. Why are you wasting time at the computer?


----------



## BWK

LilOlLady said:


> Everyone including the unborn baby is entitled to "*Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" We were all once that *unborn* that are being murdered and denied "*Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" I was once an embryo and a fetus in the process of being born. I did not get here by creations out of my mother's womb. I was once an egg. You, pro-choice people, act as if you got here in a different way other than those you chose to abort, *YOU CANNOT MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING. I was something from conception and before I was an egg. Every part of my body is alive, even the unborn in the womb. IF it is attached to you it is alive.
> Talking to you "pro-abortionist" is like talking to a brick wall. And you are not pro-choice you are pro-abortionist that you are afraid to use.*


And before when you were an egg, the sperm could have ran past you and missed the target causing a natural abortion. What's the difference in the two abortions?


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  This is unbelievably stupid.   By the time most abortions occur (between 8-12 weeks) you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, little arms and legs..... to say the preborn is a "speck" is absolutely asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brains waves? Who feeds you this crap? Prof-lifers are all hilariously ignorant of biology. (Here's the hint you'll need, dumbass. Neural activity is not "brain waves". Even plants have neural activity. Stick an EEG in them, you'll get a reading.)
> 
> Second, as I pointed out before, you're an imbecile on the topic of logic. I'll have to go very slowly for you.
> 
> It's your idiot claims that life begins at conception
> 
> If I knock that down, I knock down the whole tower of pro-life bullshit.
> 
> I knocked it down with the simple observation that specks aren't people.
> 
> Now, you're left flailing. You've got to move the goalposts, which makes it obvious that you're just making up self-serving bullshit. Sucks to be you.
> 
> So, where are you going to move those goalposts to?
> 
> By the way, nice pro-life PC revisionism with "the preborn". Standard English isn't kind to your cult, so it had to make up some speshul PC cult lingo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I was going to reply to every ignorant or misguided statement you made above, point by point.  But it's not even worth my time.  You are clearly clueless on basic biology, and you don't seem like the type who WANTS to learn, like your cohorts here, you appear to be willfully ignorant.
> 
> And AGAIN, liar, when most abortions occur, it's LONG PAST the point of being a "speck" -  you have a beating heart, a little body and face, little arms and legs.  To say its a "speck" makes you either woefully ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Makes mammoth evil I guess.. No other explanation. Evilness is growing bigger and bigger in this country, and all around this world. Most know it and see it (I think), otherwise that things are getting bad or worse, so either some are part of these problem's or they are part of the solution's. It's easy to see who is part of these problems today, and who are the ones trying to help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then work to end abortion consistent with the Constitution, the rule of law, and a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> Indeed, no one opposes anyone seeking to end the practice, that’s not the point of conflict – the conflict manifests when those hostile to abortion seek to end the practice by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.
Click to expand...



To end the practice would of course decrease the size of government having to deal with such a thing, and therefore place it back into the medical community where it belongs. Of course that community will continue to be regulated, and laws enforced because in a lot of ways it has over stepped it's boundaries over time (parts of it), and therefore those parts had created the problem to begin with over time. Government is usually dragged into these situations, and then it does a crappy job of fixing them in a correct way. Evidence of that is everywhere these days.[/QUOTE]


> The Constitution separates church and state. I'm not part of your church.


----------



## BWK

Ghost of a Rider said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't speak to all of us but many don't need a burning bush or booming voice to know that what grows in a woman's womb is a separate, distinct human. Not a "blob of cells" or a "tumor" or a "tadpole" but a real, live, human baby. I can accept that some, even many Americans find the slaughter of 2,500 babies/day to be lawful and therefore OK - I will continue to defend their right to their lives regardless - but we must do so with eyes wide open. No more rationalizing and no more semantics … we must face it and call it what it is.
> 
> Babies are dying … WTF cares what the definition of "is" is?
> 
> 
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...questions that cannot be answered.”
> 
> Such as: Does God exist?
> 
> Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.
> 
> Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.
> 
> You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.
Click to expand...

Negative! Because I never established what is. Only pro-lifers play God. I don't.


----------



## BWK

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my word.  This is unbelievably stupid.   By the time most abortions occur (between 8-12 weeks) you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, little arms and legs..... to say the preborn is a "speck" is absolutely asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brains waves? Who feeds you this crap? Prof-lifers are all hilariously ignorant of biology. (Here's the hint you'll need, dumbass. Neural activity is not "brain waves". Even plants have neural activity. Stick an EEG in them, you'll get a reading.)
> 
> Second, as I pointed out before, you're an imbecile on the topic of logic. I'll have to go very slowly for you.
> 
> It's your idiot claims that life begins at conception
> 
> If I knock that down, I knock down the whole tower of pro-life bullshit.
> 
> I knocked it down with the simple observation that specks aren't people.
> 
> Now, you're left flailing. You've got to move the goalposts, which makes it obvious that you're just making up self-serving bullshit. Sucks to be you.
> 
> So, where are you going to move those goalposts to?
> 
> By the way, nice pro-life PC revisionism with "the preborn". Standard English isn't kind to your cult, so it had to make up some speshul PC cult lingo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I was going to reply to every ignorant or misguided statement you made above, point by point.  But it's not even worth my time.  You are clearly clueless on basic biology, and you don't seem like the type who WANTS to learn, like your cohorts here, you appear to be willfully ignorant.
> 
> And AGAIN, liar, when most abortions occur, it's LONG PAST the point of being a "speck" -  you have a beating heart, a little body and face, little arms and legs.  To say its a "speck" makes you either woefully ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Makes mammoth evil I guess.. No other explanation. Evilness is growing bigger and bigger in this country, and all around this world. Most know it and see it (I think), otherwise that things are getting bad or worse, so either some are part of these problem's or they are part of the solution's. It's easy to see who is part of these problems today, and who are the ones trying to help.
Click to expand...

Then work to end abortion consistent with the Constitution, the rule of law, and a woman’s right to privacy.

Indeed, no one opposes anyone seeking to end the practice, that’s not the point of conflict – the conflict manifests when those hostile to abortion seek to end the practice by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.[/QUOTE]


> Hate through religious fanaticism.


----------



## mamooth

buttercup said:


> And yes, I stand by what I said about militant proaborts appearing to be demonic. I could post video footage, if you want.



Oh, please please please do. I think everyone here would enjoy seeing your demonic videos. 

I know I do. I find fringe religious crackpots to be a source of endless amusement.


----------



## BWK

Ghost of a Rider said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to control anyone,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
Click to expand...

And the man? What is he again?


----------



## BWK

mamooth said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, I stand by what I said about militant proaborts appearing to be demonic. I could post video footage, if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please please please do. I think everyone here would enjoy seeing your demonic videos.
> 
> I know I do. I find fringe religious crackpots to be a source of endless amusement.
Click to expand...

That makes two of us.


----------



## Unkotare

mamooth said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Made up a story”? About the most inherently and universally understood truth of the human condition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's another bizarre story on your part. When my point is you're just making up crazy stories, making up more crazy stories is probably not your best choice of options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you have some super-awesome-precious life to save? After all, you say it's the most super-important-thing evah. Why are you wasting time at the computer?
Click to expand...


Fallacy.

How can you expect a serious discourse if you don’t understand basic logic?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

LilOlLady said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...questions that cannot be answered.”
> 
> Such as: Does God exist?
> 
> Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.
> 
> Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.
> 
> You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think. If you are alive then what is part of your body is alive also. Whether it be cancer, a growth (a fetus) your hair, toenails, etc but when you die all parts of you die. The hair stops growing and the *fetus inside you dies *also because it is not getting nourishment and oxygen from you. So logic would tell any *intelligent being* that the fetus is alive. *IF IT IS GROWING IN YOUR BODY, IT IS ALIVE.*
Click to expand...


I agree. My point was based on _their_ premise that _they_ can't prove when life begins. 

Their premise is flawed as an argument against pro-lifers because it puts them on an equal footing of faith. It actually does nothing to advance the pro-choice position.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

mamooth said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they’re the same thing then you’re saying that “human being” is a social/cultural construct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm saying that, because that's the case. "Person", "human being" and "a human (noun)" are synonyms.
Click to expand...


If "Person", "human being" and "a human (noun)" are all social constructs then what are we?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...questions that cannot be answered.”
> 
> Such as: Does God exist?
> 
> Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.
> 
> Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.
> 
> You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative! Because I never established what is. Only pro-lifers play God. I don't.
Click to expand...


I know you haven't, that's the point. You haven't established what is and yet you feel secure in your position that it's okay to abort a child before birth anyway.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BWK said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, I stand by what I said about militant proaborts appearing to be demonic. I could post video footage, if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please please please do. I think everyone here would enjoy seeing your demonic videos.
> 
> I know I do. I find fringe religious crackpots to be a source of endless amusement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes two of us.
Click to expand...


Between the two of you loons there isn't a dozen functioning brain cells.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to control anyone,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
Click to expand...


I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babies aren’t dying. They are seeds. And life isn’t that precious.
> 
> You sound like pita. Cows are dying! I actually do feel bad for the cows. They are thinking feeling beings. Fetuses arent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...questions that cannot be answered.”
> 
> Such as: Does God exist?
> 
> Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.
> 
> Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.
> 
> You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think. If you are alive then what is part of your body is alive also. Whether it be cancer, a growth (a fetus) your hair, toenails, etc but when you die all parts of you die. The hair stops growing and the *fetus inside you dies *also because it is not getting nourishment and oxygen from you. So logic would tell any *intelligent being* that the fetus is alive. *IF IT IS GROWING IN YOUR BODY, IT IS ALIVE.*
Click to expand...


So is a lung cancer tumor.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a seed, you idiot, the z/e/f is a brand new human being with the *entire genetic blueprint of a new individual.* The First Week | Prenatal Overview.  Again, basic biology.
> 
> Furthermore, by the time most surgical abortions occur, you have a little face and body, a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.  Far, FAR more than just a lifeless "seed" so you are either completely ignorant or a blatant liar.
> 
> And it is disgusting that you keep saying "life isn't that precious" - that sounds like something Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy would say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...questions that cannot be answered.”
> 
> Such as: Does God exist?
> 
> Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.
> 
> Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.
> 
> You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think. If you are alive then what is part of your body is alive also. Whether it be cancer, a growth (a fetus) your hair, toenails, etc but when you die all parts of you die. The hair stops growing and the *fetus inside you dies *also because it is not getting nourishment and oxygen from you. So logic would tell any *intelligent being* that the fetus is alive. *IF IT IS GROWING IN YOUR BODY, IT IS ALIVE.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is a lung cancer tumor.
Click to expand...


Good grief....


----------



## LilOlLady

mamooth said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I was something from conception and before I was an egg.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiot standard makes no sense, as it would require that eggs be people too. After all, that egg developed into you.
> 
> As your definition is so inconsistent, it's clearly self-serving nonsense. You faked that definition so you'd have a reason to justify your sick control freak agenda.
> 
> What, you thought it wasn't obvious?
Click to expand...

Idiot. There cannot be a person unless it is first an egg. People evolve from eggs. They do not just drop out of thin air. Even Adam for formed from the dust of the earth before he took his first breath and he was a person even before he took his first breath and he became a living soul but these miracles do not happen anymore. For a fetus to not be alive it has to be dead and it is not dead. Whether you call it a living being or not it is alive.


----------



## BWK

LilOlLady said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I was something from conception and before I was an egg.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiot standard makes no sense, as it would require that eggs be people too. After all, that egg developed into you.
> 
> As your definition is so inconsistent, it's clearly self-serving nonsense. You faked that definition so you'd have a reason to justify your sick control freak agenda.
> 
> What, you thought it wasn't obvious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot. There cannot be a person unless it is first an egg. People evolve from eggs. They do not just drop out of thin air. Even Adam for formed from the dust of the earth before he took his first breath and he was a person even before he took his first breath and he became a living soul but these miracles do not happen anymore. For a fetus to not be alive it has to be dead and it is not dead. Whether you call it a living being or not it is alive.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your religious take. Good thing Church and State doesn't force me to believe what you believe.


----------



## BWK

Ghost of a Rider said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to control anyone,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
Click to expand...

 He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to control anyone,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
Click to expand...


No argument here.


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to control anyone,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
Click to expand...

Sometimes he is, but that has complicated and multiple reasons also. Then again he might just be a Piece Of Crap simple as that.

The man doesn't get off scott free though, and he knows it. Irresponsibility is not privy to just the one gender involved. Both should own up to their responsibility in life, and do the right thing. 

Now the setting the man up is also part of the equation in some instances, where as the woman attempts to lock the man in with a baby, but when that fails it's off to discard the little one by aborting the failed plan.

Then there is the false pregnancy, where the woman claims to be pregnant, but she wasn't the whole time in her attempt to lock the man into a marriage before finding out the truth about the whole thing. Her last attempt to hide it all was a claim of miscarriage to cover it all up.

Done seen and heard it all folks.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes he is, but that has complicated and multiple reasons also. Then again he might just be a Piece Of Crap simple as that.
> 
> The man doesn't get off scott free though, and he knows it. Irresponsibility is not privy to just the one gender involved. Both should own up to their responsibility in life, and do the right thing.
> 
> Now the setting the man up is also part of the equation in some instances, where as the woman attempts to lock the man in with a baby, but when that fails it's off to discard the little one by aborting the failed plan.
> 
> Then there is the false pregnancy, where the woman claims to be pregnant, but she wasn't the whole time in her attempt to lock the man into a marriage before finding out the truth about the whole thing. Her last attempt to hide it all was a claim of miscarriage to cover it all up.
> 
> Done seen and heard it all folks.
Click to expand...

What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?

What is your plan to end the practice of abortion that does not increase the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty?

For more than 40 years these questions have been submitted to conservatives, questions no one on the right has been able – or willing – to answer.

Of course, we all know why.


----------



## mamooth

Unkotare said:


> How can you expect a serious discourse if you don’t understand basic logic?



What about "you're just making up nonsense" is confusing you so much here?

I don't think anyone else is confused. It's just you. I'm trying to dumb it down to a point where you can grasp it, but that doesn't seem possible.


----------



## mamooth

SassyIrishLass said:


> Between the two of you loons there isn't a dozen functioning brain cells.



So do you have any demonic videos for us? Everyone really wants to see them. You tease us by talking about them, but you never deliver. That's not nice.

Specifically, what have your demons said about me? If demons really are revealing themselves to pro-lifers, that's something that everyone should know about.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
> 
> 
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes he is, but that has complicated and multiple reasons also. Then again he might just be a Piece Of Crap simple as that.
> 
> The man doesn't get off scott free though, and he knows it. Irresponsibility is not privy to just the one gender involved. Both should own up to their responsibility in life, and do the right thing.
> 
> Now the setting the man up is also part of the equation in some instances, where as the woman attempts to lock the man in with a baby, but when that fails it's off to discard the little one by aborting the failed plan.
> 
> Then there is the false pregnancy, where the woman claims to be pregnant, but she wasn't the whole time in her attempt to lock the man into a marriage before finding out the truth about the whole thing. Her last attempt to hide it all was a claim of miscarriage to cover it all up.
> 
> Done seen and heard it all folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion that does not increase the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty?
> 
> For more than 40 years these questions have been submitted to conservatives, questions no one on the right has been able – or willing – to answer.
> 
> Of course, we all know why.
Click to expand...

A woman's right to privacy doesn't include her supposed leftist right to murder or have her baby murdered while in the womb. That was simple. Next.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes he is, but that has complicated and multiple reasons also. Then again he might just be a Piece Of Crap simple as that.
> 
> The man doesn't get off scott free though, and he knows it. Irresponsibility is not privy to just the one gender involved. Both should own up to their responsibility in life, and do the right thing.
> 
> Now the setting the man up is also part of the equation in some instances, where as the woman attempts to lock the man in with a baby, but when that fails it's off to discard the little one by aborting the failed plan.
> 
> Then there is the false pregnancy, where the woman claims to be pregnant, but she wasn't the whole time in her attempt to lock the man into a marriage before finding out the truth about the whole thing. Her last attempt to hide it all was a claim of miscarriage to cover it all up.
> 
> Done seen and heard it all folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion that does not increase the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty?
> 
> For more than 40 years these questions have been submitted to conservatives, questions no one on the right has been able – or willing – to answer.
> 
> Of course, we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A woman's right to privacy doesn't include her supposed leftist right to murder or have her baby murdered while in the womb. That was simple. Next.
Click to expand...

You never gave an intelligent explanation. Next!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

mamooth said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between the two of you loons there isn't a dozen functioning brain cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you have any demonic videos for us? Everyone really wants to see them. You tease us by talking about them, but you never deliver. That's not nice.
> 
> Specifically, what have your demons said about me? If demons really are revealing themselves to pro-lifers, that's something that everyone should know about.
Click to expand...


I've never once mentioned videos you crazy loon. Good grief.


----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes he is, but that has complicated and multiple reasons also. Then again he might just be a Piece Of Crap simple as that.
> 
> The man doesn't get off scott free though, and he knows it. Irresponsibility is not privy to just the one gender involved. Both should own up to their responsibility in life, and do the right thing.
> 
> Now the setting the man up is also part of the equation in some instances, where as the woman attempts to lock the man in with a baby, but when that fails it's off to discard the little one by aborting the failed plan.
> 
> Then there is the false pregnancy, where the woman claims to be pregnant, but she wasn't the whole time in her attempt to lock the man into a marriage before finding out the truth about the whole thing. Her last attempt to hide it all was a claim of miscarriage to cover it all up.
> 
> Done seen and heard it all folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion that does not increase the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty?
> 
> For more than 40 years these questions have been submitted to conservatives, questions no one on the right has been able – or willing – to answer.
> 
> Of course, we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A woman's right to privacy doesn't include her supposed leftist right to murder or have her baby murdered while in the womb. That was simple. Next.
Click to expand...


That is incorrect on so many levels. But, to make it simple, I will just stick to the legal level. And BYW, there is no law against a woman having an abortion anywhere. It is only illegal, mostly in hillbilly states, to PERFORM an abortion under certain circumstances.


----------



## mamooth

SassyIrishLass said:


> I've never once mentioned videos you crazy loon. Good grief.



But your bestie did, and you jumped in to defend her on that topic. Hence, you obviously must know something.

So stop holding out on us. Show us the demons that keep revealing themselves to pro-lifers!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

mamooth said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never once mentioned videos you crazy loon. Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your bestie did, and you jumped in to defend her on that topic. Hence, you obviously must know something.
> 
> So stop holding out on us. Show us the demons that keep revealing themselves to pro-lifers!
Click to expand...


My bestie? Yer crackers old lady. Certifiable loons


----------



## BWK

mamooth said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never once mentioned videos you crazy loon. Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your bestie did, and you jumped in to defend her on that topic. Hence, you obviously must know something.
> 
> So stop holding out on us. Show us the demons that keep revealing themselves to pro-lifers!
Click to expand...

She's a liar and a coward. . Trust me. If anyone knows, I do. She cuts and runs all the time here. They'll lie and then leave when you call them out, then resurface out of another hole somewhere.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rape/incest exceptions show that. If the dirty slut had sex voluntarily, they want to punish her. If it's not her fault, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes he is, but that has complicated and multiple reasons also. Then again he might just be a Piece Of Crap simple as that.
> 
> The man doesn't get off scott free though, and he knows it. Irresponsibility is not privy to just the one gender involved. Both should own up to their responsibility in life, and do the right thing.
> 
> Now the setting the man up is also part of the equation in some instances, where as the woman attempts to lock the man in with a baby, but when that fails it's off to discard the little one by aborting the failed plan.
> 
> Then there is the false pregnancy, where the woman claims to be pregnant, but she wasn't the whole time in her attempt to lock the man into a marriage before finding out the truth about the whole thing. Her last attempt to hide it all was a claim of miscarriage to cover it all up.
> 
> Done seen and heard it all folks.
Click to expand...

And most of what we hear from the pro-life crowd is that the woman is always the one at fault, and that she's nothing but a whore. This thread is prime example.


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never once mentioned videos you crazy loon. Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your bestie did, and you jumped in to defend her on that topic. Hence, you obviously must know something.
> 
> So stop holding out on us. Show us the demons that keep revealing themselves to pro-lifers!
Click to expand...

Easy, just go look in a mirror and whoop there it is "a justifier of pre-born baby killing".


----------



## beagle9

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
> 
> 
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes he is, but that has complicated and multiple reasons also. Then again he might just be a Piece Of Crap simple as that.
> 
> The man doesn't get off scott free though, and he knows it. Irresponsibility is not privy to just the one gender involved. Both should own up to their responsibility in life, and do the right thing.
> 
> Now the setting the man up is also part of the equation in some instances, where as the woman attempts to lock the man in with a baby, but when that fails it's off to discard the little one by aborting the failed plan.
> 
> Then there is the false pregnancy, where the woman claims to be pregnant, but she wasn't the whole time in her attempt to lock the man into a marriage before finding out the truth about the whole thing. Her last attempt to hide it all was a claim of miscarriage to cover it all up.
> 
> Done seen and heard it all folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And most of what we hear from the pro-life crowd is that the woman is always the one at fault, and that she's nothing but a whore. This thread is prime example.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap.


----------



## LilOlLady

BWK said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I was something from conception and before I was an egg.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiot standard makes no sense, as it would require that eggs be people too. After all, that egg developed into you.
> 
> As your definition is so inconsistent, it's clearly self-serving nonsense. You faked that definition so you'd have a reason to justify your sick control freak agenda.
> 
> What, you thought it wasn't obvious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot. There cannot be a person unless it is first an egg. People evolve from eggs. They do not just drop out of thin air. Even Adam for formed from the dust of the earth before he took his first breath and he was a person even before he took his first breath and he became a living soul but these miracles do not happen anymore. For a fetus to not be alive it has to be dead and it is not dead. Whether you call it a living being or not it is alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for your religious take. Good thing Church and State don't force me to believe what you believe.
Click to expand...

I base my beliefs on logic and science and I also base them on the bible but I have free choice to believe what I want. I do not believe in organized religion because organized religion teaches so many different interpretations of the bible. But organized government tells you it is ok for you to do whatever you want with your body disregarding the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. *I stand with the unborn *who cannot speak and act for itself.


----------



## BWK

LilOlLady said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I was something from conception and before I was an egg.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiot standard makes no sense, as it would require that eggs be people too. After all, that egg developed into you.
> 
> As your definition is so inconsistent, it's clearly self-serving nonsense. You faked that definition so you'd have a reason to justify your sick control freak agenda.
> 
> What, you thought it wasn't obvious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot. There cannot be a person unless it is first an egg. People evolve from eggs. They do not just drop out of thin air. Even Adam for formed from the dust of the earth before he took his first breath and he was a person even before he took his first breath and he became a living soul but these miracles do not happen anymore. For a fetus to not be alive it has to be dead and it is not dead. Whether you call it a living being or not it is alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for your religious take. Good thing Church and State don't force me to believe what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I base my beliefs on logic and science and I also base them on the bible but I have free choice to believe what I want. I do not believe in organized religion because organized religion teaches so many different interpretations of the bible. But organized government tells you it is ok for you to do whatever you want with your body disregarding the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. *I stand with the unborn *who cannot speak and act for itself.
Click to expand...

You obviously got that backwards. The government "is" giving you the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you have an unwanted fetus for all the reasons you may have, where's the happiness in that? As for the government giving me the right to life, I'm already alive. Obviously that was already granted.  Your last part makes no sense. The first part I'm on board with as it pertains to organized religion.


----------



## SweetSue92

BWK said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I was something from conception and before I was an egg.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiot standard makes no sense, as it would require that eggs be people too. After all, that egg developed into you.
> 
> As your definition is so inconsistent, it's clearly self-serving nonsense. You faked that definition so you'd have a reason to justify your sick control freak agenda.
> 
> What, you thought it wasn't obvious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot. There cannot be a person unless it is first an egg. People evolve from eggs. They do not just drop out of thin air. Even Adam for formed from the dust of the earth before he took his first breath and he was a person even before he took his first breath and he became a living soul but these miracles do not happen anymore. For a fetus to not be alive it has to be dead and it is not dead. Whether you call it a living being or not it is alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for your religious take. Good thing Church and State don't force me to believe what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I base my beliefs on logic and science and I also base them on the bible but I have free choice to believe what I want. I do not believe in organized religion because organized religion teaches so many different interpretations of the bible. But organized government tells you it is ok for you to do whatever you want with your body disregarding the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. *I stand with the unborn *who cannot speak and act for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously got that backwards. The government "is" giving you the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you have an unwanted fetus for all the reasons you may have, where's the happiness in that? As for the government giving me the right to life, I'm already alive. Obviously that was already granted.  Your last part makes no sense. The first part I'm on board with as it pertains to organized religion.
Click to expand...


That might be the most boneheaded thing I've read on this forum---and that's saying something. The Declaration of Independence does NOT say the GOV"T confers these rights...they are endowed on us by our CREATOR.

This is the knowledge base we're arguing with here. dopey dopety dope


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes he is, but that has complicated and multiple reasons also. Then again he might just be a Piece Of Crap simple as that.
> 
> The man doesn't get off scott free though, and he knows it. Irresponsibility is not privy to just the one gender involved. Both should own up to their responsibility in life, and do the right thing.
> 
> Now the setting the man up is also part of the equation in some instances, where as the woman attempts to lock the man in with a baby, but when that fails it's off to discard the little one by aborting the failed plan.
> 
> Then there is the false pregnancy, where the woman claims to be pregnant, but she wasn't the whole time in her attempt to lock the man into a marriage before finding out the truth about the whole thing. Her last attempt to hide it all was a claim of miscarriage to cover it all up.
> 
> Done seen and heard it all folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And most of what we hear from the pro-life crowd is that the woman is always the one at fault, and that she's nothing but a whore. This thread is prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullcrap.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is go back through this thread and see just how much women are looked upon as the soul carriers for the responsibility, and the level of disrespect they incur.


----------



## BWK

SweetSue92 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiot standard makes no sense, as it would require that eggs be people too. After all, that egg developed into you.
> 
> As your definition is so inconsistent, it's clearly self-serving nonsense. You faked that definition so you'd have a reason to justify your sick control freak agenda.
> 
> What, you thought it wasn't obvious?
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot. There cannot be a person unless it is first an egg. People evolve from eggs. They do not just drop out of thin air. Even Adam for formed from the dust of the earth before he took his first breath and he was a person even before he took his first breath and he became a living soul but these miracles do not happen anymore. For a fetus to not be alive it has to be dead and it is not dead. Whether you call it a living being or not it is alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for your religious take. Good thing Church and State don't force me to believe what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I base my beliefs on logic and science and I also base them on the bible but I have free choice to believe what I want. I do not believe in organized religion because organized religion teaches so many different interpretations of the bible. But organized government tells you it is ok for you to do whatever you want with your body disregarding the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. *I stand with the unborn *who cannot speak and act for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously got that backwards. The government "is" giving you the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you have an unwanted fetus for all the reasons you may have, where's the happiness in that? As for the government giving me the right to life, I'm already alive. Obviously that was already granted.  Your last part makes no sense. The first part I'm on board with as it pertains to organized religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might be the most boneheaded thing I've read on this forum---and that's saying something. The Declaration of Independence does NOT say the GOV"T confers these rights...they are endowed on us by our CREATOR.
> 
> This is the knowledge base we're arguing with here. dopey dopety dope
Click to expand...

Confer to whoever  you like. I could care less.  Didn't the government sign off on the Declaration? Lol! You're inventing an irrelevant argument that is worth shit.


----------



## BWK

beagle9 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never once mentioned videos you crazy loon. Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your bestie did, and you jumped in to defend her on that topic. Hence, you obviously must know something.
> 
> So stop holding out on us. Show us the demons that keep revealing themselves to pro-lifers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy, just go look in a mirror and whoop there it is "a justifier of pre-born baby killing".
Click to expand...

First, you have to find the fully developed baby, to prove it is killing.


----------



## LilOlLady

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never once mentioned videos you crazy loon. Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your bestie did, and you jumped in to defend her on that topic. Hence, you obviously must know something.
> 
> So stop holding out on us. Show us the demons that keep revealing themselves to pro-lifers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy, just go look in a mirror and whoop there it is "a justifier of pre-born baby killing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, you have to find the fully developed baby, to prove it is killing.
Click to expand...

If that was tr


BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never once mentioned videos you crazy loon. Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your bestie did, and you jumped in to defend her on that topic. Hence, you obviously must know something.
> 
> So stop holding out on us. Show us the demons that keep revealing themselves to pro-lifers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy, just go look in a mirror and whoop there it is "a justifier of pre-born baby killing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, you have to find the fully developed baby, to prove it is killing.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and if it was true, a baby born prematurely with undeveloped lungs, missing limbs, with disabilities are not a fully developed baby and can legally be killed? That is what Nazi Germany thought and acted on.


----------



## LilOlLady

Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.


----------



## LilOlLady

*Adolf Hitler* believed in the use of *Abortion* for the purposes of Eugenics and racial cleansing. Hitler believed in the forced "evolution" of humanity through the death of the handicapped, and all those who were not Aryan, most notably including Jews. He viewed non-Aryans as inferior. An arguably similar rationale is often used to justify abortion today—specifically, the killing of unborn children who suffer from physical and mental issues, a form of eugenics.
Abortion and Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia
But Hitler was not a Christian


----------



## dblack

LilOlLady said:


> *Adolf Hitler* believed in the use of *Abortion* for the purposes of Eugenics and racial cleansing. Hitler believed in the forced "evolution" of humanity through the death of the handicapped, and all those who were not Aryan, most notably including Jews. He viewed non-Aryans as inferior. An arguably similar rationale is often used to justify abortion today—specifically, the killing of unborn children who suffer from physical and mental issues, a form of eugenics.
> Abortion and Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia
> But Hitler was not a Christian



So, you're saying Hitler believed the government should control a woman's uterus, and decide whether or not she gives birth? 

Hmm.... sounds familiar.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. _There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians._ My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.



Having read the above, especially the underlined italics section, I have come to the root of your problem. It is so self evident that I really don't even need to spell it out for you.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Adolf Hitler* believed in the use of *Abortion* for the purposes of Eugenics and racial cleansing. Hitler believed in the forced "evolution" of humanity through the death of the handicapped, and all those who were not Aryan, most notably including Jews. He viewed non-Aryans as inferior. An arguably similar rationale is often used to justify abortion today—specifically, the killing of unborn children who suffer from physical and mental issues, a form of eugenics.
> Abortion and Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia
> But Hitler was not a Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're saying Hitler believed the government should control a woman's uterus, and decide whether or not she gives birth?
> 
> Hmm.... sounds familiar.
Click to expand...

Twist that pretzel.. lol


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.


Your beliefs are subjective and personal, in no manner justifying compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.  

You’re entitled to your beliefs – but you’re not entitled to violate the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> *Adolf Hitler* believed in the use of *Abortion* for the purposes of Eugenics and racial cleansing. Hitler believed in the forced "evolution" of humanity through the death of the handicapped, and all those who were not Aryan, most notably including Jews. He viewed non-Aryans as inferior. An arguably similar rationale is often used to justify abortion today—specifically, the killing of unborn children who suffer from physical and mental issues, a form of eugenics.
> Abortion and Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia
> But Hitler was not a Christian


Hitler = you’ve lost the argument.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hitler = you’ve lost the argument.



I don't buy that any more. The Trumpster are leaning, hard, toward fascism. When Hitler comparisons are apt, we should apply them. We should learn from history, not fear it's name.


----------



## LilOlLady

BWK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no. They don’t want to punish the “dirty slut” for having sex voluntarily, they want to punish her for ending an innocent life.
> 
> 
> 
> And the man? What is he again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, what is he? "Dirty slut" was your term, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's unaccountable for his actions is what he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes he is, but that has complicated and multiple reasons also. Then again he might just be a Piece Of Crap simple as that.
> 
> The man doesn't get off scott free though, and he knows it. Irresponsibility is not privy to just the one gender involved. Both should own up to their responsibility in life, and do the right thing.
> 
> Now the setting the man up is also part of the equation in some instances, where as the woman attempts to lock the man in with a baby, but when that fails it's off to discard the little one by aborting the failed plan.
> 
> Then there is the false pregnancy, where the woman claims to be pregnant, but she wasn't the whole time in her attempt to lock the man into a marriage before finding out the truth about the whole thing. Her last attempt to hide it all was a claim of miscarriage to cover it all up.
> 
> Done seen and heard it all folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And most of what we hear from the pro-life crowd is that the woman is always the one at fault, and that she's nothing but a whore. This thread is prime example.
Click to expand...

You got that wrong. They only care about the unborn child you want to kill. That is what pro-life is.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler = you’ve lost the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy that any more. The Trumpster are leaning, hard, toward fascism. When Hitler comparisons are apt, we should apply them. We should learn from history, not fear it's name.
Click to expand...

Those defending a woman's right to privacy were being falsely compared to Hitler, hence the argument was lost by that poster.

Otherwise agreed, most Trump sycophants are moving closer to fascism; advocating for greater government authority at the expense of individual liberty is one of many examples.


----------



## LilOlLady

Only *3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization* -* the heart begins to beat.* By 4 weeks, the heart typically beats between 105 and 121 times per minute. If you got a heartbeat in the unborn it is alive.  Whether human or animal. Most abortions are done long after there is a heartbeat. The only reason you pro-abortionists say it is not a baby is so you can have an excuse to kill it. Oh, but you cannot kill something that is not alive. There is never an excuse to kill an unborn child.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler = you’ve lost the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy that any more. The Trumpster are leaning, hard, toward fascism. When Hitler comparisons are apt, we should apply them. We should learn from history, not fear it's name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those defending a woman's right to privacy were being falsely compared to Hitler, hence the argument was lost by that poster.
> 
> Otherwise agreed, most Trump sycophants are moving closer to fascism; advocating for greater government authority at the expense of individual liberty is one of many examples.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal.... Years ago everything was normal, and the Constitution was a working document in regards to that normalcy, and it applied to that normalcy in which most agreed upon. Then the left stood everything on it's head, and turned it upside down and inside out.  Now night is day and wrong is right with you leftist. Then you attempt to use our same Constitution as if it applies to your bullcrap. News flash, it don't. You can say it does till the cow's come home, but it don't.  So you see, we just need to apply your methods where we see your yes as really meaning no and our yes as still really meaning yes these days, so in applying your leftist logic you lose everytime.


----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler = you’ve lost the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy that any more. The Trumpster are leaning, hard, toward fascism. When Hitler comparisons are apt, we should apply them. We should learn from history, not fear it's name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those defending a woman's right to privacy were being falsely compared to Hitler, hence the argument was lost by that poster.
> 
> Otherwise agreed, most Trump sycophants are moving closer to fascism; advocating for greater government authority at the expense of individual liberty is one of many examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the deal.... Years ago everything was normal, and the Constitution was a working document in regards to that normalcy, and it applied to that normalcy in which most agreed upon. Then the left stood everything on it's head, and turned it upside down and inside out.  Now night is day and wrong is right with you leftist. Then you attempt to use our same Constitution as if it applies to your bullcrap. News flash, it don't. You can say it does till the cow's come home, but it don't.  So you see, we just need to apply your methods where we see your yes as really meaning no and our yes as still really meaning yes these days, so in applying your leftist logic you lose everytime.
Click to expand...


Abortion was not restricted at all in four states prior to Roe. Therefore, in your imaginary Ozzie and Harriet world, I guess that  was perfectly normal, too.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> Only *3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization* -* the heart begins to beat.* By 4 weeks, the heart typically beats between 105 and 121 times per minute. If you got a heartbeat in the unborn it is alive.  Whether human or animal. Most abortions are done long after there is a heartbeat. The only reason you pro-abortionists say it is not a baby is so you can have an excuse to kill it. Oh, but you cannot kill something that is not alive. There is never an excuse to kill an unborn child.


Having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the state cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.


No one is ‘pro-abortion.’

It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.

What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?


----------



## Vandalshandle

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ‘pro-abortion.’
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
Click to expand...


I have pointed out to these guys repeatedly that nobody is pro-abortion, but are pro-choice. Nevertheless, they take delight n using the term, which is their immature way of insulting pro-choice people, like Trump supporters referring to the democrat party.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ‘pro-abortion.’
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
Click to expand...

You are confused with your privacy stance, as privacy is trumped by law's pertaining to murder everyday in this country, so get over your privacy stance because it's wrong.


----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ‘pro-abortion.’
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused with your privacy stance, as privacy is trumped by law's pertaining to murder everyday in this country, so get over your privacy stance because it's wrong.
Click to expand...


I now know why judges discourage people who are not attorneys from representing themselves in court. They have no idea what legal terms, like "murder" mean.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ‘pro-abortion.’
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused with your privacy stance, as privacy is trumped by law's pertaining to murder everyday in this country, so get over your privacy stance because it's wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong. 

You’re confusing criminal law (murder) with civil law (the right to privacy) – one having nothing to do with the other.  

As already correctly noted: as a settled, accepted fact of law abortion is not ‘murder,’ and as a settled, accepted fact of law the protected liberties of the woman are paramount, immune from attack by the state:

‘Our cases recognize "the right of the _individual_, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." _Eisenstadt v. Baird_, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." _Prince v. Massachusetts_, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.' _Casey, ibid_

*“…the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.”*

You may not like the law or agree with the law but that doesn’t change the fact that abortion is not ‘murder,’ that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ entitled to Constitutional protections, and that the state has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.


----------



## dblack

Vandalshandle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ‘pro-abortion.’
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused with your privacy stance, as privacy is trumped by law's pertaining to murder everyday in this country, so get over your privacy stance because it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I now know why judges discourage people who are not attorneys from representing themselves in court. They have no idea what legal terms, like "murder" mean.
Click to expand...


This isn't ignorance. It's good ole orwellian wordsmithing. Change the arguments by changing what the words mean. Keep changing them until you can win the argument. 

Speaking of pretzels.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ‘pro-abortion.’
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused with your privacy stance, as privacy is trumped by law's pertaining to murder everyday in this country, so get over your privacy stance because it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> You’re confusing criminal law (murder) with civil law (the right to privacy) – one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> As already correctly noted: as a settled, accepted fact of law abortion is not ‘murder,’ and as a settled, accepted fact of law the protected liberties of the woman are paramount, immune from attack by the state:
> 
> ‘Our cases recognize "the right of the _individual_, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." _Eisenstadt v. Baird_, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." _Prince v. Massachusetts_, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.' _Casey, ibid_
> 
> *“…the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.”*
> 
> You may not like the law or agree with the law but that doesn’t change the fact that abortion is not ‘murder,’ that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby’ entitled to Constitutional protections, and that the state has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.
Click to expand...


You're such a dumbass and won't sway anyone, Clownshoes


----------



## beagle9

Vandalshandle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ‘pro-abortion.’
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused with your privacy stance, as privacy is trumped by law's pertaining to murder everyday in this country, so get over your privacy stance because it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I now know why judges discourage people who are not attorneys from representing themselves in court. They have no idea what legal terms, like "murder" mean.
Click to expand...

Go blow that smoke in someone elses face, because you ain't convincing the audience at all. Murder is the taking of a human beings life. A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb. A baby with developed body parts, a heart beat, and the ability to let the mother know that she or he is in there alive (and she knows it), is of course a living being/human in that womb who is to be cared for and nurtured until birth.


----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ‘pro-abortion.’
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused with your privacy stance, as privacy is trumped by law's pertaining to murder everyday in this country, so get over your privacy stance because it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I now know why judges discourage people who are not attorneys from representing themselves in court. They have no idea what legal terms, like "murder" mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go blow that smoke in someone elses face, because you ain't convincing the audience at all. Murder is the taking of a human beings life. A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb. A baby with developed body parts, a heart beat, and the ability to let the mother know that she or he is in there alive (and she knows it), is of course a living being/human in that womb who is to be cared for and nurtured until birth.
Click to expand...


Well, on the one hand, we have the law's definition of "murder", which includes the words, "...illegal taking of life", and on the other hand, we have Beagle's definition.

I think that I will go with the legal definition, as accepted by every state in the country, and the Supreme Court of the United States..


----------



## LilOlLady

In the U.S., most *crimes of violence* are covered by state *law*, not federal *law*. *Thirty-eight (38) states *currently recognize the* "unborn child" *(the term usually used) or fetus as a* homicide victim*, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle *throughout the period of pre-natal development.*
*Biologically speaking, human life begins at conception. When the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm come together, they combine and create a new string of DNA that is personalized and totally unique.*
The Bible considers *a fetus to be an unborn child,* a *planned human being* that God is forming from the moment of conception. This being the case, it doesn’t really matter what *human jurisprudence *says or how *socially or politically acceptable abortion is*. *God’s law takes precedence*. A mother who decides to abort her child is unilaterally making a decision to end another person’s life—and that is and always has been the definition of murder.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> In the U.S., most *crimes of violence* are covered by state *law*, not federal *law*. *Thirty-eight (38) states *currently recognize the* "unborn child" *(the term usually used) or fetus as a* homicide victim*, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle *throughout the period of pre-natal development.
> Biologically speaking, human life begins at conception. When the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm come together, they combine and create a new string of DNA that is personalized and totally unique.*
> The Bible considers *a fetus to be an unborn child,* a *planned human being* that God is forming from the moment of conception. This being the case, it doesn’t really matter what *human jurisprudence *says or how *socially or politically acceptable abortion is*. *God’s law takes precedence*. A mother who decides to abort her child is unilaterally making a decision to end another person’s life—and that is and always has been the definition of murder.



The mother has never been punished for an abortion. Yet, if the same woman were to "murder" somebody, she would spend life in prison. You argument falls apart. But, you knew that already.


----------



## LilOlLady

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the U.S., most *crimes of violence* are covered by state *law*, not federal *law*. *Thirty-eight (38) states *currently recognize the* "unborn child" *(the term usually used) or fetus as a* homicide victim*, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle *throughout the period of pre-natal development.
> Biologically speaking, human life begins at conception. When the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm come together, they combine and create a new string of DNA that is personalized and totally unique.*
> The Bible considers *a fetus to be an unborn child,* a *planned human being* that God is forming from the moment of conception. This being the case, it doesn’t really matter what *human jurisprudence *says or how *socially or politically acceptable abortion is*. *God’s law takes precedence*. A mother who decides to abort her child is unilaterally making a decision to end another person’s life—and that is and always has been the definition of murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mother has never been punished for an abortion. Yet, if the same woman were to "murder" somebody, she would spend life in prison. You argument falls apart. But, you knew that already.
Click to expand...

That is only because *Big Brother, the US Government* has passed a law that *killing of the unborn child* is *legal* but do not explicitly say it is* murder* but* Big Brother, the US Government *could also pass a law that makes *abortion illegal* and *killing the unborn child is murder*. *Abortion vs Murder. *Matter semantics. It is  a matter of what the meaning of *"abortion"* is. LMAO But at the same time, "abortion" means to *end somethin*g. That something is a baby in progress. But how can you end something that is nothing.? Pro-Choice is the biggest joke of this century.


----------



## beagle9

Vandalshandle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of people who are pro-abortion are Christians as those who make those laws also so you cannot blame my beliefs when I quote the bible on religion. There is little difference if any between *church and state.* Because they are all Christians. My beliefs are based on the logic that the *unborn is alive*. It is taking in *oxygen and nourishment* from its mother and if it is cut off the *unborn will die. But your logic is that it is not alive so it cannot die? *What part of this do you* pro-abortionis*t do not understand? Well if you did understand you would not be pro-abortionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ‘pro-abortion.’
> 
> It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also defending a woman’s right to privacy.
> 
> What is your plan to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused with your privacy stance, as privacy is trumped by law's pertaining to murder everyday in this country, so get over your privacy stance because it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I now know why judges discourage people who are not attorneys from representing themselves in court. They have no idea what legal terms, like "murder" mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go blow that smoke in someone elses face, because you ain't convincing the audience at all. Murder is the taking of a human beings life. A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb. A baby with developed body parts, a heart beat, and the ability to let the mother know that she or he is in there alive (and she knows it), is of course a living being/human in that womb who is to be cared for and nurtured until birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, on the one hand, we have the law's definition of "murder", which includes the words, "...illegal taking of life", and on the other hand, we have Beagle's definition.
> 
> I think that I will go with the legal definition, as accepted by every state in the country, and the Supreme Court of the United States..
Click to expand...

Pay attention... You are losing.


----------



## mamooth

LilOlLady said:


> Only *3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization* -* the heart begins to beat.*



So killing a chicken is murder? After all, they have hearts too.

If not, then why did you bring it up?

Oh, your biology is wrong. What you have at that time is more of a thick spot on a blood vessel than a heart.


----------



## mamooth

beagle9 said:


> A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb.



That's your subjective opinion, one not shared by most people. Being it's just your subjective opinion, you don't get to use the power of the authoritarian state to force everyone to live by it.


----------



## LilOlLady

Think. A fetus is either _*ALIVE or DEAD*_.* DEAD* is not taking in *oxygen and nutrients* and *do not have a beating heart.* *ALIVE *is taking in *oxygen and nutrients* and *have a beating hear*t unless you are a plant, therefore the *fetus is alive because it is taking in oxygen, nutrients, growing and have a beating heart.* There is not a state of being between* ALIVE and DEAD.*


----------



## LilOlLady

mamooth said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only *3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization* -* the heart begins to beat.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So killing a chicken is murder? After all, they have hearts too.
> 
> If not, then why did you bring it up?
> 
> Oh, your biology is wrong. What you have at that time is more of a thick spot on a blood vessel than a heart.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between a chicken and a baby. Killing a chicken is not murder but killing a human being is murder. Chopping a tree down will kill it but it is not murder. You do know there is a difference between an animal and a human being??


----------



## LilOlLady

A pregnant woman is much like a tomato plant. When is a tomato a tomato? The plant gets nutrients from its roots, it blooms and is pollinated by bees and you get little* green tomatoes* and let it grow it becomes a *red vine ripen tomat*o ready to be eaten. Pick the flower and you will never get a tomato. The placenta is the roots and if you cut the baby away from the placenta you will never get a baby because the baby will die.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the U.S., most *crimes of violence* are covered by state *law*, not federal *law*. *Thirty-eight (38) states *currently recognize the* "unborn child" *(the term usually used) or fetus as a* homicide victim*, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle *throughout the period of pre-natal development.
> Biologically speaking, human life begins at conception. When the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm come together, they combine and create a new string of DNA that is personalized and totally unique.*
> The Bible considers *a fetus to be an unborn child,* a *planned human being* that God is forming from the moment of conception. This being the case, it doesn’t really matter what *human jurisprudence *says or how *socially or politically acceptable abortion is*. *God’s law takes precedence*. A mother who decides to abort her child is unilaterally making a decision to end another person’s life—and that is and always has been the definition of murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mother has never been punished for an abortion. Yet, if the same woman were to "murder" somebody, she would spend life in prison. You argument falls apart. But, you knew that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is only because *Big Brother, the US Government* has passed a law that *killing of the unborn child* is *legal* but do not explicitly say it is* murder* but* Big Brother, the US Government *could also pass a law that makes *abortion illegal* and *killing the unborn child is murder*. *Abortion vs Murder. *Matter semantics. It is  a matter of what the meaning of *"abortion"* is. LMAO But at the same time, "abortion" means to *end somethin*g. That something is a baby in progress. But how can you end something that is nothing.? Pro-Choice is the biggest joke of this century.
Click to expand...


Too bad that your dream of controlling my wife and child's body is never going to come true, Big Brother.


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only *3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization* -* the heart begins to beat.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So killing a chicken is murder? After all, they have hearts too.
> 
> If not, then why did you bring it up?
> 
> Oh, your biology is wrong. What you have at that time is more of a thick spot on a blood vessel than a heart.
Click to expand...

You equating chickens to humans now ?? Yes you are, and that's why killing a human to you is just like killing a chicken eh ???


----------



## beagle9

mamooth said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your subjective opinion, one not shared by most people. Being it's just your subjective opinion, you don't get to use the power of the authoritarian state to force everyone to live by it.
Click to expand...

Why not you???? You leftist have been using the power of the authoritarian state since the 60's in order to control and destroy everything. I guess it's our turn now...


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> ... You leftist have been using the power of the authoritarian state since the 60's in order to control and destroy everything. I guess it's our turn now...



And on it's the left's turn to pretend _they_ care about individual liberty.

Pretzel on.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your subjective opinion, one not shared by most people. Being it's just your subjective opinion, you don't get to use the power of the authoritarian state to force everyone to live by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not you???? You leftist have been using the power of the authoritarian state since the 60's in order to control and destroy everything. I guess it's our turn now...
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The left has used the authority of the Constitution to fight against segregation and discrimination, and to limit the power of the state to violate citizens' rights and protected liberties - opposed every step of the way by the reactionary right. 

Seeking to violate a woman's right to privacy is yet another example of conservatives' desire to increase the size and power of government at the expense of individual liberty.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> I guess that I am demonic, too. Sort of like Smurfs:



Relax.  I'm pretty sure stupidity isn't caused by demons.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There just isn't much room for dissenting opinions in your world, is there....
> 
> 
> 
> They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...questions that cannot be answered.”
> 
> Such as: Does God exist?
> 
> Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.
> 
> Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.
> 
> You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think. If you are alive then what is part of your body is alive also. Whether it be cancer, a growth (a fetus) your hair, toenails, etc but when you die all parts of you die. The hair stops growing and the *fetus inside you dies *also because it is not getting nourishment and oxygen from you. So logic would tell any *intelligent being* that the fetus is alive. *IF IT IS GROWING IN YOUR BODY, IT IS ALIVE.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is a lung cancer tumor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....
Click to expand...


I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same as if he's an educated, thinking, sane adult.  I've literally had more scientific, fact-based discussions with grade-schoolers than are possible with this loon.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Cecilie1200 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're stuck in their own minds independent of the endless possibilities and questions that cannot be answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “...questions that cannot be answered.”
> 
> Such as: Does God exist?
> 
> Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.
> 
> Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.
> 
> You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think. If you are alive then what is part of your body is alive also. Whether it be cancer, a growth (a fetus) your hair, toenails, etc but when you die all parts of you die. The hair stops growing and the *fetus inside you dies *also because it is not getting nourishment and oxygen from you. So logic would tell any *intelligent being* that the fetus is alive. *IF IT IS GROWING IN YOUR BODY, IT IS ALIVE.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is a lung cancer tumor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same as if he's an educated, thinking, sane adult.  I've literally had more scientific, fact-based discussions with grade-schoolers than are possible with this loon.
Click to expand...


Hence my good grief. Sometimes that's all that needs to be said


----------



## mamooth

beagle9 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only *3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization* -* the heart begins to beat.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So killing a chicken is murder? After all, they have hearts too.
> 
> If not, then why did you bring it up?
> 
> Oh, your biology is wrong. What you have at that time is more of a thick spot on a blood vessel than a heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equating chickens to humans now ?? Yes you are, and that's why killing a human to you is just like killing a chicken eh ???
Click to expand...


I explained my point clearly. If a heartbeat is what determines murder, then killing a chicken is murder. Being that killing a chicken isn't murder, then clearly a heartbeat means nothing, and it's just more cheap emotionalism by dishonest pro-lifers.

That's such a simple point, even you should have understood it. Yet you don't understand it, or you pretended you didn't. That means you're either a moron or a liar. Which is it? If you'd like to claim both titles, I'm sure everyone would believe you.


----------



## mamooth

Cecilie1200 said:


> I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same



But nobody said that, except you.

Oh, you're just doing that thing all pro-lifers do, where they proudly tell big lies for the glory of TheCause.

They have to, because the immoral and stupid pro-life philosophy can't be supported without lies by the bushel.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

mamooth said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only *3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization* -* the heart begins to beat.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So killing a chicken is murder? After all, they have hearts too.
> 
> If not, then why did you bring it up?
> 
> Oh, your biology is wrong. What you have at that time is more of a thick spot on a blood vessel than a heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equating chickens to humans now ?? Yes you are, and that's why killing a human to you is just like killing a chicken eh ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained my point clearly. If a heartbeat is what determines murder, then killing a chicken is murder. Being that killing a chicken isn't murder, then clearly a heartbeat means nothing, and it's just more cheap emotionalism by dishonest pro-lifers.
> 
> That's such a simple point, even you should have understood it. Yet you don't understand it, or you pretended you didn't. That means you're either a moron or a liar. Which is it? If you'd like to claim both titles, I'm sure everyone would believe you.
Click to expand...


Wtf? You're comparing a chicken to a human baby?


----------



## mamooth

LilOlLady said:


> There is a big difference between a chicken and a baby. Killing a chicken is not murder but killing a human being is murder.



Got it. Your heartbeat rant was cheap dishonest emotionalizing. You're angry and flustered about getting called out on it, so you're changing the topic.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only *3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization* -* the heart begins to beat.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So killing a chicken is murder? After all, they have hearts too.
> 
> If not, then why did you bring it up?
> 
> Oh, your biology is wrong. What you have at that time is more of a thick spot on a blood vessel than a heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equating chickens to humans now ?? Yes you are, and that's why killing a human to you is just like killing a chicken eh ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained my point clearly. If a heartbeat is what determines murder, then killing a chicken is murder. Being that killing a chicken isn't murder, then clearly a heartbeat means nothing, and it's just more cheap emotionalism by dishonest pro-lifers.
> 
> That's such a simple point, even you should have understood it. Yet you don't understand it, or you pretended you didn't. That means you're either a moron or a liar. Which is it? If you'd like to claim both titles, I'm sure everyone would believe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wtf? You're comparing a chicken to a human baby?
Click to expand...


What?!  You mean there's a difference between humans and birds?!  This is groundbreaking news!  OMG!!!


----------



## mamooth

SassyIrishLass said:


> Wtf? You're comparing a chicken to a human baby?



No, I did no such thing.

The point you're making here is how the low intelligence of pro-lifers makes them easy prey for cult propaganda.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

mamooth said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf? You're comparing a chicken to a human baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did no such thing.
> 
> The point you're making here is how the low intelligence of pro-lifers makes them easy prey for cult propaganda.
Click to expand...


Yes you did, clownshoes. Scroll up


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf? You're comparing a chicken to a human baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did no such thing.
> 
> The point you're making here is how the low intelligence of pro-lifers makes them easy prey for cult propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you did, clownshoes. Scroll up
Click to expand...


Somehow, they continue to think that we should take them seriously.  It's mind-boggling.


----------



## mamooth

SassyIrishLass said:


> Yes you did, clownshoes. Scroll up



Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.

You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

mamooth said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, clownshoes. Scroll up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.
> 
> You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.
Click to expand...


Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers

You'll be judged accordingly


----------



## mamooth

Cecilie1200 said:


> Somehow, they continue to think that we should take them seriously. It's mind-boggling.



In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart.

Obviously, I can do it

You can't, because you're kind of slow. When you try, you come across as cowardly and evasive. You're clearly using insults and lies to deflect, because you can't defend your dogshit philosophy with reason and morality.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your subjective opinion, one not shared by most people. Being it's just your subjective opinion, you don't get to use the power of the authoritarian state to force everyone to live by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not you???? You leftist have been using the power of the authoritarian state since the 60's in order to control and destroy everything. I guess it's our turn now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The left has used the authority of the Constitution to fight against segregation and discrimination, and to limit the power of the state to violate citizens' rights and protected liberties - opposed every step of the way by the reactionary right.
> 
> Seeking to violate a woman's right to privacy is yet another example of conservatives' desire to increase the size and power of government at the expense of individual liberty.
Click to expand...

Taking back what the left stole by way of their twisting the Constitution into pretzels, and then turning it onto it's head is now us being reactionary eh ????  You best look at what you all have done, and then look at how it is having to all be fixed now, otherwise before you attempt to justify your bullcrap talking points that no one but only you believe in. Have to judge history on it's merits, and not upon your bullcrap you like to spew here daily.


----------



## dblack

SassyIrishLass said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, clownshoes. Scroll up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.
> 
> You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
Click to expand...


Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The left has used the authority of the Constitution to fight against segregation and discrimination, and to limit the power of the state to violate citizens' rights and protected liberties ...



I wish. Truth is, they gave up on that long ago.


----------



## keepitreal

Miley Cyrus shared some new photos on her Instagram account 
to promote her new album She Is Coming.



























Miley is teaming up with Planned Parenthood, Marc Jacobs 
and her own Happy Hippie Foundation to raise money 
for the reproductive health nonprofit

Their fundraising hoodie retails for $175 
and is set to ship around July 15.










ROFLMFAO 

Back in 2018 onThe Tonight Show 
she demanded that men don't send her dick pics

Miley Cyrus + #MeToo = A FUCKING JOKE!

My, my, my....sooo many people 
are in for a rude awakening!

Disgusting & pathetic she is


----------



## LilOlLady

SassyIrishLass said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> “...questions that cannot be answered.”
> 
> Such as: Does God exist?
> 
> Theists: God cannot be proven to not exist but we believe He does anyway.
> 
> Pro-Choicers: It cannot be proven that life doesn’t begin until after birth but we believe it doesn’t anyway.
> 
> You have more in common with Pro-Lifers than you think.
> 
> 
> 
> Think. If you are alive then what is part of your body is alive also. Whether it be cancer, a growth (a fetus) your hair, toenails, etc but when you die all parts of you die. The hair stops growing and the *fetus inside you dies *also because it is not getting nourishment and oxygen from you. So logic would tell any *intelligent being* that the fetus is alive. *IF IT IS GROWING IN YOUR BODY, IT IS ALIVE.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is a lung cancer tumor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same as if he's an educated, thinking, sane adult.  I've literally had more scientific, fact-based discussions with grade-schoolers than are possible with this loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence my good grief. Sometimes that's all that needs to be said
Click to expand...


A lung cancer tumor is growing but it will never be anything more than a lung cancer tumor. A fetus is alive and will grow into a baby if it is not aborted. I now understand why pro-choice people are so dumb abort abortions it is because they don't know the difference between *an unborn baby and a tumor*. LMAO


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think. If you are alive then what is part of your body is alive also. Whether it be cancer, a growth (a fetus) your hair, toenails, etc but when you die all parts of you die. The hair stops growing and the *fetus inside you dies *also because it is not getting nourishment and oxygen from you. So logic would tell any *intelligent being* that the fetus is alive. *IF IT IS GROWING IN YOUR BODY, IT IS ALIVE.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is a lung cancer tumor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same as if he's an educated, thinking, sane adult.  I've literally had more scientific, fact-based discussions with grade-schoolers than are possible with this loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence my good grief. Sometimes that's all that needs to be said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lung cancer tumor is growing but it will never be anything more than a lung cancer tumor. A fetus is alive and will grow into a baby if it is not aborted. I now understand why pro-choice people are so dumb abort abortions it is because they don't know the difference between *an unborn baby and a tumor*. LMAO
Click to expand...



...and for the first time, YOU have admitted that a fetus is not a baby. Congratulations! There is hope for you, yet!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your subjective opinion, one not shared by most people. Being it's just your subjective opinion, you don't get to use the power of the authoritarian state to force everyone to live by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not you???? You leftist have been using the power of the authoritarian state since the 60's in order to control and destroy everything. I guess it's our turn now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The left has used the authority of the Constitution to fight against segregation and discrimination, and to limit the power of the state to violate citizens' rights and protected liberties - opposed every step of the way by the reactionary right.
> 
> Seeking to violate a woman's right to privacy is yet another example of conservatives' desire to increase the size and power of government at the expense of individual liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taking back what the left stole by way of their twisting the Constitution into pretzels, and then turning it onto it's head is now us being reactionary eh ????  You best look at what you all have done, and then look at how it is having to all be fixed now, otherwise before you attempt to justify your bullcrap talking points that no one but only you believe in. Have to judge history on it's merits, and not upon your bullcrap you like to spew here daily.
Click to expand...

We continue to see today the contempt for the protected liberties of citizens common to most on the authoritarian right.

Not only are conservatives working to violate the privacy rights of women, most on the right seek to violate the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans, the voting rights of minorities, and the due process rights of immigrants.   

We see the authoritarian right advocating for more government and bigger government with voter ‘ID’ laws, the gerrymandering of Congressional districes, ‘sanctuary city’ measures, and policies hostile to local communities.

For mare than 60 years liberals have fought in the courts and at the ballot box to end segregation, end discrimination, defend the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights of citizens against government excess and overreach, defend the right of interracial couples to marry, the privacy rights of women, the due process rights of immigrants, and the right of same-sex couples to marry – again, opposed every step of the way by hateful, bigoted, racist conservatives.

The undeniable facts are clearly documented in the political, social, legal, and Constitutional history of the 20th Century: liberals fighting for the rights and protected liberties of citizens against government excess and overreach, against conservatives using the power and authority of the state to violate those rights and protected liberties, to use the authority of the state to compel conformity and punish dissent.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has used the authority of the Constitution to fight against segregation and discrimination, and to limit the power of the state to violate citizens' rights and protected liberties ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish. Truth is, they gave up on that long ago.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

It's not the truth.  

See my post #2698

_Brown v. Board of Education_

_Hernandez v. Texas_

_Cooper v. Aaron_

_Mapp v. Ohio_

_Gideon v. Wainwright_

_Miranda v. Arizona_

_Griswold v. Connecticut_

_Loving v. Virginia _

_Roe v. Wade_

_Plyler v. Doe_

_Planned Parenthood v. Casey_

_Romer v. Evans_

_Lawrence v. Texas_

_US v. Windsor_

_Obergefell v. Hodges_

_Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt_

Above are but a few of the legal battles fought by liberals in defense of citizens’ rights and protected liberties against government excess and overreach, against the authoritarian right’s contempt for those rights and protected liberties, and against the fear, ignorance, bigotry, racism, and hate common to most on the right – a battle liberals continue to fight today.

So stow the idiocy about how liberals are no longer fighting for citizens’ rights against rightwing government excess and overreach.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, clownshoes. Scroll up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.
> 
> You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
Click to expand...

And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.


----------



## keepitreal

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is a lung cancer tumor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same as if he's an educated, thinking, sane adult.  I've literally had more scientific, fact-based discussions with grade-schoolers than are possible with this loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence my good grief. Sometimes that's all that needs to be said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lung cancer tumor is growing but it will never be anything more than a lung cancer tumor. A fetus is alive and will grow into a baby if it is not aborted. I now understand why pro-choice people are so dumb abort abortions it is because they don't know the difference between *an unborn baby and a tumor*. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for the first time, YOU have admitted that a fetus is not a baby. Congratulations! There is hope for you, yet!
Click to expand...

A fetus is not a baby...yet
A baby is not a toddler...yet 
A toddler is not a preschooler...yet 
A preschooler is not a young child...yet
A young child is not a tween...yet
A tween is not a teenager...yet
A teenager is not an emerging adult...yet
An emerging adult is not a young adult...yet
A young adult is not a middle aged adult...yet
A middle aged adult is not a senior...yet
A senior is not elderly...yet
An elderly person dies...and the cycle of life ends

You can not end what hasn’t begun.
If a fetus isn’t living, abortion isn’t necessary


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your subjective opinion, one not shared by most people. Being it's just your subjective opinion, you don't get to use the power of the authoritarian state to force everyone to live by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not you???? You leftist have been using the power of the authoritarian state since the 60's in order to control and destroy everything. I guess it's our turn now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The left has used the authority of the Constitution to fight against segregation and discrimination, and to limit the power of the state to violate citizens' rights and protected liberties - opposed every step of the way by the reactionary right.
> 
> Seeking to violate a woman's right to privacy is yet another example of conservatives' desire to increase the size and power of government at the expense of individual liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taking back what the left stole by way of their twisting the Constitution into pretzels, and then turning it onto it's head is now us being reactionary eh ????  You best look at what you all have done, and then look at how it is having to all be fixed now, otherwise before you attempt to justify your bullcrap talking points that no one but only you believe in. Have to judge history on it's merits, and not upon your bullcrap you like to spew here daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We continue to see today the contempt for the protected liberties of citizens common to most on the authoritarian right.
> 
> Not only are conservatives working to violate the privacy rights of women, most on the right seek to violate the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans, the voting rights of minorities, and the due process rights of immigrants.
> 
> We see the authoritarian right advocating for more government and bigger government with voter ‘ID’ laws, the gerrymandering of Congressional districes, ‘sanctuary city’ measures, and policies hostile to local communities.
> 
> For mare than 60 years liberals have fought in the courts and at the ballot box to end segregation, end discrimination, defend the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights of citizens against government excess and overreach, defend the right of interracial couples to marry, the privacy rights of women, the due process rights of immigrants, and the right of same-sex couples to marry – again, opposed every step of the way by hateful, bigoted, racist conservatives.
> 
> The undeniable facts are clearly documented in the political, social, legal, and Constitutional history of the 20th Century: liberals fighting for the rights and protected liberties of citizens against government excess and overreach, against conservatives using the power and authority of the state to violate those rights and protected liberties, to use the authority of the state to compel conformity and punish dissent.
Click to expand...


You're nuts Jones


----------



## LilOlLady

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is a lung cancer tumor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same as if he's an educated, thinking, sane adult.  I've literally had more scientific, fact-based discussions with grade-schoolers than are possible with this loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence my good grief. Sometimes that's all that needs to be said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lung cancer tumor is growing but it will never be anything more than a lung cancer tumor. A fetus is alive and will grow into a baby if it is not aborted. I now understand why pro-choice people are so dumb abort abortions it is because they don't know the difference between *an unborn baby and a tumor*. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for the first time, YOU have admitted that a fetus is not a baby. Congratulations! There is hope for you, yet!
Click to expand...

A fetus is not a baby yet just as a boy is not a man but both are alive. A green tomato will be a red tomato but it is still a tomato. The question is not if the fetus is a baby or not but is it is alive. I have never in my life heard an unborn baby called a fetus by its mother. A fetus is just the scientific and medical terminology for the unborn at a certain stage of development. An embryo is not a baby but it is the beginning of a baby if not aborted by extermination. The unborn do not instantly come alive when it is born and take its first breath on it's own. The mother is breathing and eating for her baby while in the womb. Which acts as an incubator. Maybe some of you pro-choice people really should not have babies.


----------



## LilOlLady

The *angel* went to her and *said*, 'Greetings, you who are highly favoured! ... But the *angel said* to her, 'Do not be afraid, *Mary*, you have found favour with God. You *will be with child* and *give birth to a son*, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He *will* be great and *will* be called the *Son* of the Most High.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same as if he's an educated, thinking, sane adult.  I've literally had more scientific, fact-based discussions with grade-schoolers than are possible with this loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence my good grief. Sometimes that's all that needs to be said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lung cancer tumor is growing but it will never be anything more than a lung cancer tumor. A fetus is alive and will grow into a baby if it is not aborted. I now understand why pro-choice people are so dumb abort abortions it is because they don't know the difference between *an unborn baby and a tumor*. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for the first time, YOU have admitted that a fetus is not a baby. Congratulations! There is hope for you, yet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is not a baby yet just as a boy is not a man but both are alive. A green tomato will be a red tomato but it is still a tomato. The question is not if the fetus is a baby or not but is it is alive. I have never in my life heard an unborn baby called a fetus by its mother. A fetus is just the scientific and medical terminology for the unborn at a certain stage of development. An embryo is not a baby but it is the beginning of a baby if not aborted by extermination. The unborn do not instantly come alive when it is born and take its first breath on it's own. The mother is breathing and eating for her baby while in the womb. Which acts as an incubator. Maybe some of you pro-choice people really should not have babies.
Click to expand...


A fetus is mot just a medial term. It is also a legal term. You would have to change the law to outlaw aborting a fetus. You do not have to change the law to outlaw the killing of a baby, which nobody wants to do anyway.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> The *angel* went to her and *said*, 'Greetings, you who are highly favoured! ... But the *angel said* to her, 'Do not be afraid, *Mary*, you have found favour with God. You *will be with child* and *give birth to a son*, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He *will* be great and *will* be called the *Son* of the Most High.



{sigh}


----------



## Cecilie1200

keepitreal said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same as if he's an educated, thinking, sane adult.  I've literally had more scientific, fact-based discussions with grade-schoolers than are possible with this loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence my good grief. Sometimes that's all that needs to be said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lung cancer tumor is growing but it will never be anything more than a lung cancer tumor. A fetus is alive and will grow into a baby if it is not aborted. I now understand why pro-choice people are so dumb abort abortions it is because they don't know the difference between *an unborn baby and a tumor*. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for the first time, YOU have admitted that a fetus is not a baby. Congratulations! There is hope for you, yet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is not a baby...yet
> A baby is not a toddler...yet
> A toddler is not a preschooler...yet
> A preschooler is not a young child...yet
> A young child is not a tween...yet
> A tween is not a teenager...yet
> A teenager is not an emerging adult...yet
> An emerging adult is not a young adult...yet
> A young adult is not a middle aged adult...yet
> A middle aged adult is not a senior...yet
> A senior is not elderly...yet
> An elderly person dies...and the cycle of life ends
> 
> You can not end what hasn’t begun.
> If a fetus isn’t living, abortion isn’t necessary
Click to expand...


Sorry.  You have the right idea, but you are factually incorrect in your first statement.  A fetus is not a NEWBORN yet, but he IS a baby.

Way too much fuzzy thinking and sloppy language going on on all sides these days.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human being is that of a human whether growing in a womb or born outside the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your subjective opinion, one not shared by most people. Being it's just your subjective opinion, you don't get to use the power of the authoritarian state to force everyone to live by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not you???? You leftist have been using the power of the authoritarian state since the 60's in order to control and destroy everything. I guess it's our turn now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The left has used the authority of the Constitution to fight against segregation and discrimination, and to limit the power of the state to violate citizens' rights and protected liberties - opposed every step of the way by the reactionary right.
> 
> Seeking to violate a woman's right to privacy is yet another example of conservatives' desire to increase the size and power of government at the expense of individual liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taking back what the left stole by way of their twisting the Constitution into pretzels, and then turning it onto it's head is now us being reactionary eh ????  You best look at what you all have done, and then look at how it is having to all be fixed now, otherwise before you attempt to justify your bullcrap talking points that no one but only you believe in. Have to judge history on it's merits, and not upon your bullcrap you like to spew here daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We continue to see today the contempt for the protected liberties of citizens common to most on the authoritarian right.
> 
> Not only are conservatives working to violate the privacy rights of women, most on the right seek to violate the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans, the voting rights of minorities, and the due process rights of immigrants.
> 
> We see the authoritarian right advocating for more government and bigger government with voter ‘ID’ laws, the gerrymandering of Congressional districes, ‘sanctuary city’ measures, and policies hostile to local communities.
> 
> For mare than 60 years liberals have fought in the courts and at the ballot box to end segregation, end discrimination, defend the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights of citizens against government excess and overreach, defend the right of interracial couples to marry, the privacy rights of women, the due process rights of immigrants, and the right of same-sex couples to marry – again, opposed every step of the way by hateful, bigoted, racist conservatives.
> 
> The undeniable facts are clearly documented in the political, social, legal, and Constitutional history of the 20th Century: liberals fighting for the rights and protected liberties of citizens against government excess and overreach, against conservatives using the power and authority of the state to violate those rights and protected liberties, to use the authority of the state to compel conformity and punish dissent.
Click to expand...

The modern day leftist movement is how old (verses) the old movements that shaped and created this nation for centuries now ???  Uhh that's what I thought.... Experience beats ignorance led by inexperience every time.

No one is taking anything from you leftist, but rather just taking back some of what you all have stolen from others over time such as the lives of thousands killed in abortion factories.  You leftist have used the very documents this nation had crafted over time, to then add in things that the documents were never meant to stand for and /or was ever meant to cover.......  Then you all used the system of government in a dominant, forceful, and yet twisted way in order to somehow threaten and brow beat your way into the minds of the weak by convincing them that (it) applies no matter what that (it) is.

We'll (it) has now come under a ground swell review, and it (abortion) ,might be gone soon.

Abortion in the forms it has taken was never part of this nation's platform until recent years, and it needs to be stopped if it is killing human beings.... We should not have a program that has killed hundreds of thousands of potential American citizens in which would have added to the greatness of this nation over time.

The getting away from God by attempting to outlaw him from our public square was the biggest mistake this nation has ever made, and it shows these days big time.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has used the authority of the Constitution to fight against segregation and discrimination, and to limit the power of the state to violate citizens' rights and protected liberties ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish. Truth is, they gave up on that long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> It's not the truth.
> 
> See my post #2698
> 
> _Brown v. Board of Education_
> 
> _Hernandez v. Texas_
> 
> _Cooper v. Aaron_
> 
> _Mapp v. Ohio_
> 
> _Gideon v. Wainwright_
> 
> _Miranda v. Arizona_
> 
> _Griswold v. Connecticut_
> 
> _Loving v. Virginia _
> 
> _Roe v. Wade_
> 
> _Plyler v. Doe_
> 
> _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_
> 
> _Romer v. Evans_
> 
> _Lawrence v. Texas_
> 
> _US v. Windsor_
> 
> _Obergefell v. Hodges_
> 
> _Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt_
> 
> Above are but a few of the legal battles fought by liberals in defense of citizens’ rights and protected liberties against government excess and overreach, against the authoritarian right’s contempt for those rights and protected liberties, and against the fear, ignorance, bigotry, racism, and hate common to most on the right – a battle liberals continue to fight today.
> 
> So stow the idiocy about how liberals are no longer fighting for citizens’ rights against rightwing government excess and overreach.
Click to expand...

Why are you mixing in so many issues on the issue of abortion ?? Do you think that everything is under attack, and if so why ?? 

Who has led you to believe such bullcrap ?? The fixing of things never involved everything under some sort of umbrella, but if an agenda as in a socialistic, communist, radical one is in play, then I can see why you take all issues, and then attempt to combine them in order to make your enemy as ominus and horrid as one possibly can make them, and you do this in order to defeat them ???


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, clownshoes. Scroll up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.
> 
> You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
Click to expand...

Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.


----------



## buttercup




----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, clownshoes. Scroll up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.
> 
> You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
Click to expand...


Nobody on the left wrings their hands about the attack on socialism. Trump has embraced it bigly, now that he is subsidizing Midwest farmers billions of dollars per year because of his failed tariff war.


----------



## beagle9

buttercup said:


>


Amazing huh ?


----------



## beagle9

Vandalshandle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.
> 
> You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the left wrings their hands about the attack on socialism. Trump has embraced it bigly, now that he is subsidizing Midwest farmers billions of dollars per year because of his failed tariff war.
Click to expand...

No pain no gain... Winning !!!!


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, clownshoes. Scroll up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.
> 
> You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
Click to expand...


Piss off. It's not the job of government to punish sin. You can't have a theocracy.


----------



## Vandalshandle

beagle9 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the left wrings their hands about the attack on socialism. Trump has embraced it bigly, now that he is subsidizing Midwest farmers billions of dollars per year because of his failed tariff war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No pain no gain... Winning !!!!
Click to expand...


Well, cheer up. When Trump destroys the American economy, you will be able to claim "victory".


----------



## LilOlLady

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how one is supposed to talk to a fool who thinks all organic tissue is exactly the same as if he's an educated, thinking, sane adult.  I've literally had more scientific, fact-based discussions with grade-schoolers than are possible with this loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence my good grief. Sometimes that's all that needs to be said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lung cancer tumor is growing but it will never be anything more than a lung cancer tumor. A fetus is alive and will grow into a baby if it is not aborted. I now understand why pro-choice people are so dumb abort abortions it is because they don't know the difference between *an unborn baby and a tumor*. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for the first time, YOU have admitted that a fetus is not a baby. Congratulations! There is hope for you, yet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is not a baby yet just as a boy is not a man but both are alive. A green tomato will be a red tomato but it is still a tomato. The question is not if the fetus is a baby or not but is it is alive. I have never in my life heard an unborn baby called a fetus by its mother. A fetus is just the scientific and medical terminology for the unborn at a certain stage of development. An embryo is not a baby but it is the beginning of a baby if not aborted by extermination. The unborn do not instantly come alive when it is born and take its first breath on it's own. The mother is breathing and eating for her baby while in the womb. Which acts as an incubator. Maybe some of you pro-choice people really should not have babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus is mot just a medial term. It is also a legal term. You would have to change the law to outlaw aborting a fetus. You do not have to change the law to outlaw the killing of a baby, which nobody wants to do anyway.
Click to expand...

The law can be changed as it was, before Roe vs Wade (1973), it was illegal to kill a fetus ie unborn baby before there was a law that made it legal.


----------



## buttercup

keepitreal said:


> Miley Cyrus shared some new photos on her Instagram account
> to promote her new album She Is Coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miley is teaming up with Planned Parenthood, Marc Jacobs
> and her own Happy Hippie Foundation to raise money
> for the reproductive health nonprofit
> 
> Their fundraising hoodie retails for $175
> and is set to ship around July 15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMFAO
> 
> Back in 2018 onThe Tonight Show
> she demanded that men don't send her dick pics
> 
> Miley Cyrus + #MeToo = A FUCKING JOKE!
> 
> My, my, my....sooo many people
> are in for a rude awakening!
> 
> Disgusting & pathetic she is


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.
> 
> You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piss off. It's not the job of government to punish sin. You can't have a theocracy.
Click to expand...

What do you call murder ???? It is sin...
Does the government punish murderers ??

What do you call theft ?????? It is sin......
Does the government punish thieves ????

What do you call adultery ??? It is sin...
Does the government punish the adulterer in a divorce proceeding ?????

What do you call bearing false witness against another ??? It is sin... Does the government punish those whom lie to it under oath ????

How did we come to the understanding that these things are wrong, and therefore must be punished ??? We see the results and negative effects it brings upon another, so we realize that what is being talked about in the Bible is sin, and sin is the same thing in which causes a negative effect upon the citizens, so of course we punish those who engage in such things in which causes these negative effects upon another, and righteously so.


----------



## beagle9

Vandalshandle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the left wrings their hands about the attack on socialism. Trump has embraced it bigly, now that he is subsidizing Midwest farmers billions of dollars per year because of his failed tariff war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No pain no gain... Winning !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, cheer up. When Trump destroys the American economy, you will be able to claim "victory".
Click to expand...

You think winning is bowing down to your potential enemies, and licking their boots ??  Time to change direction if one becomes a thorn in your side. Of course the American people have become so weak anymore that it's really pathetic.

Everything is going to work out. Righteousness, and doing what's right makes everything alright everytime. No Fear !!!!


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piss off. It's not the job of government to punish sin. You can't have a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you call murder ???? It is sin...
> Does the government punish murderers ??
> 
> What do you call theft ?????? It is sin......
> Does the government punish thieves ????
> 
> What do you call adultery ??? It is sin...
> Does the government punish the adulterer in a divorce proceeding ?????
> 
> What do you call bearing false witness against another ??? It is sin... Does the government punish those whom lie to it under oath ????
Click to expand...


All of these offenses violate individual rights, which is clearly a concept you've abandoned - or perhaps never comprehended in the first place.

You can't have a theocracy. Sorry.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" The Ghoul Den Rule Of Due Unto Others As One Would Have Done Unto Themselves "*



beagle9 said:


> What do you call murder ???? It is sin...
> Does the government punish murderers ??
> 
> What do you call theft ?????? It is sin......
> Does the government punish thieves ????
> 
> What do you call adultery ??? It is sin...
> Does the government punish the adulterer in a divorce proceeding ?????
> 
> What do you call bearing false witness against another ??? It is sin... Does the government punish those whom lie to it under oath ????
> 
> How did we come to the understanding that these things are wrong, and therefore must be punished ??? We see the results and negative effects it brings upon another, *so we realize that what is being talked about in the Bible is sin, and sin is the same thing in which causes a negative effect upon the citizens, so of course we punish those who engage in such things in which causes these negative effects upon another,* and righteously so.



** More Misgivings From The Religious Reich **

Below are quotations from Numbers 5 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5&version=KJV :
_27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that,* if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: *and the woman shall be a curse among her people._
_28 And *if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.*_
_29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;_
_*
Clearly , inducing miscarriage when the wife was carrying a child that resulted from adultery is acceptable to gawd ;* and , yet , i*s a raped woman not defiled ? *

The meaning of an after life , of a chance for eternal life , for being born again , for reincarnated , etc . are all metaphors with a literal meaning of passing on ones genetic identity through ones offspring . 

Thus , *children of rape provide an opportunity for a degenerate to pass on their genetic identity* , and from the perspective of those competing fairly , fuck them !

Medical reasons including fetal abnormalities do not become evident until the second or third trimester and what do they have to do with fitness for genetic continuance and what is the impetus of a state to dictate an undo burden onto individuals who may as well try again in another month ?

*The principle striving against abortion by the religious reich is used to validate " delusions for grandeur " and " will to power " to somehow establish that they will be immortal and wake up from a dirt nap .*

The religious reich are anti-nomian heretics ; and , few understand the depth of that statement . _

** Snyncretism Of Interior Planet Venus Passed On By Fools To Fools **

The replacement of roman cosmogony with the semitic cosmogony of sin mythology and luciferianism by christianity and by i slam with its crescent moon and venus star symbolism has got be one of the most idiotic directions of human fabrication .

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia
_*Sīn* /ˈsiːn/ or *Suen* (Akkadian: EN.ZU, pronounced Su'en, Sîn)[1] or *Nanna* (Sumerian:  DNANNA) was the god of the moon in the Mesopotamian religions of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia. Nanna is a Sumerian deity, the son of Enlil and Ninlil, and became identified with the Semitic Sīn. The two chief seats of Nanna's/Sīn's worship were Ur in the south of Mesopotamia and Harran in the north. A moon god by the same name was also worshipped in South Arabia. 

*Sīn was also a protector of shepherds. *During the period in which Ur exercised supremacy over the Euphrates valley (between 2600 and 2400 BC), Sīn was considered the supreme god. It was then that he was designated as "father of the gods", "head of the gods" or "creator of all things". 

Sīn was also called "He whose heart can not be read" and was told that "he could see farther than all the gods". It is said that every new moon, the gods gather together from him to make predictions about the future. _

Luciferianism - Wikipedia
_Lucifer is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12. This word, transliterated [3] or heylel,[4] occurs once in the Hebrew Bible[3] and according to the KJV-based Strong's Concordance means "shining one, light-bearer".[4] The Septuagint renders  in Greek as [5][6][7][8][9] (heōsphoros),[10][11][12] a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star.[13] The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate,[14] which translates as lucifer,[15][16] meaning* "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing*".[17]

Later Christian tradition came to use the Latin word for "morning star", lucifer, as a proper name ("Lucifer") for the Devil; as he was before his fall.[18]_


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence my good grief. Sometimes that's all that needs to be said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lung cancer tumor is growing but it will never be anything more than a lung cancer tumor. A fetus is alive and will grow into a baby if it is not aborted. I now understand why pro-choice people are so dumb abort abortions it is because they don't know the difference between *an unborn baby and a tumor*. LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for the first time, YOU have admitted that a fetus is not a baby. Congratulations! There is hope for you, yet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is not a baby yet just as a boy is not a man but both are alive. A green tomato will be a red tomato but it is still a tomato. The question is not if the fetus is a baby or not but is it is alive. I have never in my life heard an unborn baby called a fetus by its mother. A fetus is just the scientific and medical terminology for the unborn at a certain stage of development. An embryo is not a baby but it is the beginning of a baby if not aborted by extermination. The unborn do not instantly come alive when it is born and take its first breath on it's own. The mother is breathing and eating for her baby while in the womb. Which acts as an incubator. Maybe some of you pro-choice people really should not have babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus is mot just a medial term. It is also a legal term. You would have to change the law to outlaw aborting a fetus. You do not have to change the law to outlaw the killing of a baby, which nobody wants to do anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law can be changed as it was, before Roe vs Wade (1973), it was illegal to kill a fetus ie unborn baby before there was a law that made it legal.
Click to expand...


Actually, that is not true. Abortion was virtually unrestricted in 17 states prior to Roe.

states with unrestricted abortion before Roe - Yahoo Image Search Results

In addition to that, abortion was not even criminalized in the USA until the mid 19th century.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan, the Lord of Lies, clearly has your soul snagged in his infernal vice-grip pliers, along with the souls of most pro-lifers.
> 
> You all may think you're cut a special deal with Satan for a luxury suite in Hell. Not the case. Satan, being the Lord of Lies, doesn't keep his deals. You'll burn with the rest. Think about it. Repent before it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piss off. It's not the job of government to punish sin. You can't have a theocracy.
Click to expand...


No?  So why do we have criminal law, and police, and prisons?


----------



## Salt

The Pro-choice side makes the debate about women's rights because they do not want to engage with the Pro-lifers actual argument....that the unborn child is a human life. Instead they scream about an attack on women's rights in order to distract from what abortion really is. Murder.

This video provides a further discussion:


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry clownshoes I'm on the Lord's mission to save the babies from evil people like you. If anyone is Satan's minions it's you baby murderers
> 
> You'll be judged accordingly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piss off. It's not the job of government to punish sin. You can't have a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  So why do we have criminal law, and police, and prisons?
Click to expand...


To protect individual rights. Not to punish sin. Sometimes those overlap. Often they don't.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck you and your lord. The US isn't a theocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piss off. It's not the job of government to punish sin. You can't have a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  So why do we have criminal law, and police, and prisons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To protect individual rights. Not to punish sin. Sometimes those overlap. Often they don't.
Click to expand...


Riiiiiight.  There's absolutely no element of "This is bad and you should be punished for doing it" involved.  Uh huh.


----------



## LilOlLady

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lung cancer tumor is growing but it will never be anything more than a lung cancer tumor. A fetus is alive and will grow into a baby if it is not aborted. I now understand why pro-choice people are so dumb abort abortions it is because they don't know the difference between *an unborn baby and a tumor*. LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for the first time, YOU have admitted that a fetus is not a baby. Congratulations! There is hope for you, yet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fetus is not a baby yet just as a boy is not a man but both are alive. A green tomato will be a red tomato but it is still a tomato. The question is not if the fetus is a baby or not but is it is alive. I have never in my life heard an unborn baby called a fetus by its mother. A fetus is just the scientific and medical terminology for the unborn at a certain stage of development. An embryo is not a baby but it is the beginning of a baby if not aborted by extermination. The unborn do not instantly come alive when it is born and take its first breath on it's own. The mother is breathing and eating for her baby while in the womb. Which acts as an incubator. Maybe some of you pro-choice people really should not have babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus is mot just a medial term. It is also a legal term. You would have to change the law to outlaw aborting a fetus. You do not have to change the law to outlaw the killing of a baby, which nobody wants to do anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law can be changed as it was, before Roe vs Wade (1973), it was illegal to kill a fetus ie unborn baby before there was a law that made it legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is not true. Abortion was virtually unrestricted in 17 states prior to Roe.
> 
> states with unrestricted abortion before Roe - Yahoo Image Search Results
> 
> In addition to that, abortion was not even criminalized in the USA until the mid 19th century.
Click to expand...

Various anti-abortion laws have been in force in each state since at least 1900. Illegal but not a crime warranting prosecuting.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is yet another manifestation of the right’s authoritarianism: conservatives’ contempt for Establishment Clause jurisprudence – where it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, that religious doctrine and dogma not be codified in secular law, and that citizens be free from religious doctrine and dogma as compelled by the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piss off. It's not the job of government to punish sin. You can't have a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  So why do we have criminal law, and police, and prisons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To protect individual rights. Not to punish sin. Sometimes those overlap. Often they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.  There's absolutely no element of "This is bad and you should be punished for doing it" involved.  Uh huh.
Click to expand...


That may be some people's motivation - or they may simply consider violating someone's rights as 'bad'. But the point stands. Government is there to protect our rights, not play morality parent.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free to sin yourselves into hell, just quit dragging others into the pit with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piss off. It's not the job of government to punish sin. You can't have a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  So why do we have criminal law, and police, and prisons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To protect individual rights. Not to punish sin. Sometimes those overlap. Often they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.  There's absolutely no element of "This is bad and you should be punished for doing it" involved.  Uh huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be some people's motivation - or they may simply consider violating someone's rights as 'bad'. But the point stands. Government is there to protect our rights, not play morality parent.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but you don't get to say "THIS is 'morality parenting', but this is just protecting rights" based solely on what you approve and disapprove of.  The fact stands that our laws are based on morality, whatever weasel words you try to use to get around it, and it's not "demanding a theocracy" to suggest that abortion shouldn't be sanctioned by government . . . and it certainly isn't "demanding a theocracy" to express the personal opinion that it's sinful.  I doubt that sin is actually the primary point in any public policy Beagle is advocating in regards to abortion.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" The Defiled "*

** Religious Reich Espouses Abortion Exception For Adultery **


Salt said:


> The Pro-choice side makes the debate about women's rights because they do not want to engage with the Pro-lifers actual argument....that the unborn child is a human life. Instead they scream about an attack on women's rights in order to distract from what abortion really is. Murder.  This video provides a further discussion:


Obviously it is NOT murder to abort a fetus that results from adultery according to gawd - Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5 - King James Version .

_27 *And when he hath made her to drink the water, *then it shall come to pass, that,* if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: *and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
28 And *if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.*
29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;_


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" The Defiled "*
> 
> ** Religious Reich Espouses Abortion Exception For Adultery **
> 
> 
> Salt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-choice side makes the debate about women's rights because they do not want to engage with the Pro-lifers actual argument....that the unborn child is a human life. Instead they scream about an attack on women's rights in order to distract from what abortion really is. Murder.  This video provides a further discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it is NOT murder to abort a fetus that results from adultery according to gawd - Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5 - King James Version .
> 
> _27 *And when he hath made her to drink the water, *then it shall come to pass, that,* if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: *and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
> 28 And *if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.*
> 29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;_
Click to expand...

A scholar must answer this for us (if he or she can), because your interpretation could very well be wrong completely. Hmmm.

Now give us your interpretation of this in which you have copied for us to read. Thanks.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piss off. It's not the job of government to punish sin. You can't have a theocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?  So why do we have criminal law, and police, and prisons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To protect individual rights. Not to punish sin. Sometimes those overlap. Often they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.  There's absolutely no element of "This is bad and you should be punished for doing it" involved.  Uh huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be some people's motivation - or they may simply consider violating someone's rights as 'bad'. But the point stands. Government is there to protect our rights, not play morality parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you don't get to say "THIS is 'morality parenting', but this is just protecting rights" based solely on what you approve and disapprove of.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm basing it on. I'm saying that if no one's rights are being violated, the government has no business intervening, regardless of whether some people might think sin is involved.


----------



## dblack

Monk-Eye said:


> *" The Defiled "*
> 
> ** Religious Reich Espouses Abortion Exception For Adultery **
> 
> 
> Salt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-choice side makes the debate about women's rights because they do not want to engage with the Pro-lifers actual argument....that the unborn child is a human life. Instead they scream about an attack on women's rights in order to distract from what abortion really is. Murder.  This video provides a further discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it is NOT murder to abort a fetus that results from adultery according to gawd - Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5 - King James Version .
> 
> _27 *And when he hath made her to drink the water, *then it shall come to pass, that,* if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: *and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
> 28 And *if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.*
> 29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;_
Click to expand...


It's in the book!


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Fake Posers Demanding Their Way Be Done "*

** Slapped Down For Arrogance **


beagle9 said:


> A scholar must answer this for us (if he or she can), because *your interpretation could very well be wrong completely.* *Hmmm.*
> Now give us your interpretation of this in which you have copied for us to read. Thanks.


The interpretations have been documented numerous times before as an Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia .

Do you not get it - anti-nomian heretic ? !


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Shrill "*

** Ate` **


dblack said:


> It's in the book!


Yes , thereby placing the pro-birth from conception agenda on the skids .

Atë - Wikipedia


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Fake Posers Demanding Their Way Be Done "*
> 
> ** Slapped Down For Arrogance **
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A scholar must answer this for us (if he or she can), because *your interpretation could very well be wrong completely.* *Hmmm.*
> Now give us your interpretation of this in which you have copied for us to read. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations have been documented numerous times before as an Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia .
> 
> Do you not get it - anti-nomian heretic ? !
Click to expand...

Give us your interpretation.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Pompous Pious Promoting - Render Unto Caeser All While Aspiring To Be Caeser "*

** Relevance Of Deduction **



beagle9 said:


> Give us your interpretation.


The interpretation is for you to find an exception to the Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia based upon whether a woman was or was not pregnant when the trial by ordeal occurred , all in the context of " else she shall conceive seed " , because else she shall not conceive seed - Successful management of uterine prolapse during pregnancy with vaginal pessary: a case report .
_
** Genetic Continuance And Strong Anthropic Principles **

The meaning of an after life , of a chance for eternal life , for being born again , for being reincarnated , etc . are all metaphors with a literal meaning of passing on ones genetic identity through ones offspring .

Far be it from me to presume that Brood parasite - Wikipedia does not occur within nature , but a woman conceiving a child for a man not her husband without the informed consent of her husband with whom she has a monogamous agreement is illegitimate aggression against self ownership of the husband . 

Medical reasons including fetal abnormalities do not become evident until the second or third trimester and fitness for genetic continuance and is the privilege of individuals and not a dictate of the state , and it is especially not an option of a state to impose undo burdens onto individuals who may as well try again in another month .

The children of rape provide an opportunity for one whom has violated non aggression principles by a degenerate act of defiling the self ownership of a woman to pass on their genetic identity .

The religious reich in its obtrusive antinomian heresy ignore the meaning of life for self validation of its own delusions of grandeur .
_


----------



## Cecilie1200

beagle9 said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" The Defiled "*
> 
> ** Religious Reich Espouses Abortion Exception For Adultery **
> 
> 
> Salt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-choice side makes the debate about women's rights because they do not want to engage with the Pro-lifers actual argument....that the unborn child is a human life. Instead they scream about an attack on women's rights in order to distract from what abortion really is. Murder.  This video provides a further discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it is NOT murder to abort a fetus that results from adultery according to gawd - Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5 - King James Version .
> 
> _27 *And when he hath made her to drink the water, *then it shall come to pass, that,* if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: *and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
> 28 And *if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.*
> 29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A scholar must answer this for us (if he or she can), because your interpretation could very well be wrong completely. Hmmm.
> 
> Now give us your interpretation of this in which you have copied for us to read. Thanks.
Click to expand...


It's actually pretty easy to understand if you've read and studied the book of Numbers for context, rather than cherrypicking for a verse to use out-of-context, the way Monkey Boy did.  Short answer, that's not an abortion/miscarriage being described.  He saw "Belly shall swell", and ASSumed the woman in question was pregnant.

Long answer:  The book of Numbers, along with Leviticus and Deuteronomy, spends a lot of time spelling out the laws God gave to the Israelites during their wilderness years, to enable them to function as a coherent and insular society while wandering the land.  Chapter 5, verses 27-29 spell out the test for an adulterous wife if there was no evidence of the adultery, but only suspicion on the part of the husband.  If she was guilty, then she would be cursed with very visible signs of her guilt and become sterile.  If she was innocent, then she would be fine and still able to get pregnant.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No?  So why do we have criminal law, and police, and prisons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To protect individual rights. Not to punish sin. Sometimes those overlap. Often they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.  There's absolutely no element of "This is bad and you should be punished for doing it" involved.  Uh huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be some people's motivation - or they may simply consider violating someone's rights as 'bad'. But the point stands. Government is there to protect our rights, not play morality parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you don't get to say "THIS is 'morality parenting', but this is just protecting rights" based solely on what you approve and disapprove of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I'm basing it on. I'm saying that if no one's rights are being violated, the government has no business intervening, regardless of whether some people might think sin is involved.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated, because you personally have decided that the unborn baby is "no one" and therefore has no inherent rights.

And "prolife is all about sin and religion!" continues to be a straw man.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" The Defiled "*
> 
> ** Religious Reich Espouses Abortion Exception For Adultery **
> 
> 
> Salt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-choice side makes the debate about women's rights because they do not want to engage with the Pro-lifers actual argument....that the unborn child is a human life. Instead they scream about an attack on women's rights in order to distract from what abortion really is. Murder.  This video provides a further discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it is NOT murder to abort a fetus that results from adultery according to gawd - Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5 - King James Version .
> 
> _27 *And when he hath made her to drink the water, *then it shall come to pass, that,* if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: *and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
> 28 And *if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.*
> 29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's in the book!
Click to expand...


No, it's not.  And it's very interesting to me that pro-aborts spend vastly more time trying to justify their position via the Bible that pro-lifers ever do.

Inconsistency is a sign of a guilty conscience.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Fake Posers Demanding Their Way Be Done "*
> 
> ** Slapped Down For Arrogance **
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A scholar must answer this for us (if he or she can), because *your interpretation could very well be wrong completely.* *Hmmm.*
> Now give us your interpretation of this in which you have copied for us to read. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations have been documented numerous times before as an Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia .
> 
> Do you not get it - anti-nomian heretic ? !
Click to expand...


Wikipedia?  Could you be any more pathetic?  Why not just tattoo "Village Idiot" on your forehead and be done with it?

And even your treasured "source of all knowledge" doesn't say what you think it says.  It doesn't get any more pitiful than that.

Clearly, thinking is not for you, and you should never attempt it again.  Stick to something you're good at . . . whatever that might be.


----------



## dblack

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated


You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently _disapprove_. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Hurling Ad Hominem Hoping To Win With Any Insult "*

** Village Idiots Clueless About Intents Basic Overview **


Cecilie1200 said:


> Wikipedia?  Could you be any more pathetic?  Why not just tattoo "Village Idiot" on your forehead and be done with it?   and even your treasured "source of all knowledge" doesn't say what you think it says.  It doesn't get any more pitiful than that.  Clearly, thinking is not for you, and you should never attempt it again.  Stick to something you're good at . . . whatever that might be.


Let us guess , you bought an encyclopedia collection for your wall , and somehow believe that it is more credible than wikipedia on elements of fact .

For elements of fact , wikipedia is known to be as reliable and more reliable than purchased encyclopedias ; in fact , if you have every tried to publish to wikipedia , you would understand it is not a task for simpletons , as the first criteria is that valid publication references are required ; and , notice is provided when materials are contentious .

So , stick your ad hominem condemnation of open source in your pathetic pie hole , as the wikipedia resource was used to let fools know that i was not the first to find or to suggest .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Exegesis Eisegesis And Pursuit To Disqualify Vagaries Of Possible Scenarios "*

** Popped Cherries And Speaking In Without Clarity **


Cecilie1200 said:


> It's actually pretty easy to understand if you've read and studied the book of Numbers for context, rather than cherrypicking for a verse to use out-of-context, the way Monkey Boy did.  Short answer, that's not an abortion/miscarriage being described.  *He saw "Belly shall swell", and ASSumed the woman in question was pregnant.*
> 
> Long answer:  The book of Numbers, along with Leviticus and Deuteronomy, spends a lot of time spelling out the laws God gave to the Israelites during their wilderness years, to enable them to function as a coherent and insular society while wandering the land.  Chapter 5, verses 27-29 spell out the test for an adulterous wife if there was no evidence of the adultery, but only suspicion on the part of the husband.  If she was guilty, then she would be cursed with very visible signs of her guilt and become sterile.  If she was innocent, then she would be fine and still able to get pregnant.


If you think that a wife cannot be pregnant by another man when a man believes his wife has been cheating , you are as stupid as the day is long .

*The her " belly shall swell " did not enter into my consideration as an indication of pregnancy and i understood it to be whatever was happening in her bowels and causing her to bloat what would cause the prolapse and if pregnant to miscarriage .
*
During that age , women whose uterus or bladder prolapsed during pregnancy would likely have died of sepsis .

Simple facts are that you IGNORANTLY purport that " she shall conceive seed " means the woman would not have been made sterile , to save the stupidity of nomian political agenda .

No doubt you believe in such crap in the first place so go get 72 virgins and let them drink the potion by procedure , see how you scientific method works out for you .

We get the same crap out of the fictional ishmaelism whack jobs that exclaim an imam is needed to explain the qurayn , especially the obvious directives to violate non violence principles , else alleged interpretations with which they disagree and seek to safeguard their facilitation of the same are false , which is simpleton effort .


----------



## Cecilie1200

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Hurling Ad Hominem Hoping To Win With Any Insult "*
> 
> ** Village Idiots Clueless About Intents Basic Overview **
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia?  Could you be any more pathetic?  Why not just tattoo "Village Idiot" on your forehead and be done with it?   and even your treasured "source of all knowledge" doesn't say what you think it says.  It doesn't get any more pitiful than that.  Clearly, thinking is not for you, and you should never attempt it again.  Stick to something you're good at . . . whatever that might be.
> 
> 
> 
> Let us guess , you bought an encyclopedia collection for your wall , and somehow believe that it is more credible than wikipedia on elements of fact .
> 
> For elements of fact , wikipedia is known to be as reliable and more reliable than purchased encyclopedias ; in fact , if you have every tried to publish to wikipedia , you would understand it is not a task for simpletons , as the first criteria is that valid publication references are required ; and , notice is provided when materials are contentious .
> 
> So , stick your ad hominem condemnation of open source in your pathetic pie hole , as the wikipedia resource was used to let fools know that i was not the first to find or to suggest .
Click to expand...


I don't even have to guess that you found out how to type "Wikipedia" and decided learning was a waste of your time.  All I have to do is listen to your ignorant ass extolling the "scholarship" of it and denigrating book learning as "bought an encyclopedia collection".

Do us all a favor and hold your breath waiting for me to justify myself and my education to the likes of a "Wikipedia genius" like yourself.  I'm guessing your IQ actually goes up a point or two when you're unconscious.

You cited Wikipedia as your ultimate source, AND YOU CITED IT WRONG.  You not only lost this argument, shitforbrains, you basically threw yourself on your own metaphorical sword.  Run the fuck along to the pop music fanboards where you belong.

FLUSH!


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Blow Hard Believing Flamboyant Gestures Are Relevant "*

** Potty Mouth Comodians **


Cecilie1200 said:


> I don't even have to guess that you found out how to type "Wikipedia" and decided learning was a waste of your time.  All I have to do is listen to your ignorant ass extolling the "scholarship" of it and denigrating book learning as "bought an encyclopedia collection".
> 
> Do us all a favor and hold your breath waiting for me to justify myself and my education to the likes of a "Wikipedia genius" like yourself.  I'm guessing your IQ actually goes up a point or two when you're unconscious.
> 
> You cited Wikipedia as your ultimate source, AND YOU CITED IT WRONG.  You not only lost this argument, shitforbrains, you basically threw yourself on your own metaphorical sword.  Run the fuck along to the pop music fanboards where you belong.
> 
> FLUSH!


My forwarded positions on the legality of abortion for well over 15 years have been based upon the constitution and upon ethical valuations of suffering as a prerequisite for intervening on behalf of another by proxy and upon a necessity of sophisticated physical states for sentience , for sapience , for introspection that is perpetuated through procreation .

The numbers rabbit recently became evident to myself and find it sufficient to challenge the idiocy of puritanism who would deserve more respect if they were followers of Jainism - Wikipedia rather than examples for Church of the SubGenius - Wikipedia .

Your idea of winning is to have the discourse degrade into babbling idiocy of which you are an encouraging participant .

Let me know when you acquire the capacity to debate the real issues .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Stipulations Of State Limits "*

** Natural Freedoms And Social Civil Contracts **


dblack said:


> You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently _disapprove_. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see *the issue of legality as an entirely different question*.


That is correct , a state is comprised of and concerned with protecting individual liberties of its citizens who must meet a requirement of birth .

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, _"Logically, of course, *a legitimate state interest in this area* need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."_

From the fact that a fetus is not entitled to equal protection , it is the private property of the mother , from which a wright to privacy follows .

The principles of self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents ) are major facets of individualism that asserts one cannot exchange or surrender self ownership for enslavement or debt ; thus , the concept " my body , my choice " is intrinsically tied to self ownership .

An individual and not a state is responsible for if or when they choose to perpetuate their genetic identity , it is not a responsibility of a state to dictate it .

It has always remained my position that males are aggressive because unlike a woman who knows that she is passing on her genetic identity to the offsping she conceives , a man remains uncertain and anxious about those assurances .


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated
> 
> 
> 
> You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently _disapprove_. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove. To have any issue with abortion in a moral sense, is to not give any support to something as tragic as abortion, and to take a stand against something that is appalling to your inner being, your soul, and your humanity. Walking the fence is unexceptable, and it signals a confusion on the issues on your part.

Take a firm stand on the issues, and stand by your agreement or disagreement on divisive issues regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It's better that way.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove.



I've been clear. I disapprove.

But I don't think it should illegal. Those are two different questions. Let me break it down more specifically: Just because something is bad, doesn't mean it should be illegal. Just because something is good, doesn't mean it should be mandatory. Likewise, making something illegal, doesn't necessarily make it bad. And making it legal doesn't mean it's good. Surely you comprehend this, eh?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated
> 
> 
> 
> You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently _disapprove_. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove. To have any issue with abortion in a moral sense, is to not give any support to something as tragic as abortion, and to take a stand against something that is appalling to your inner being, your soul, and your humanity. Walking the fence is unexceptable, and it signals a confusion on the issues on your part.
> 
> Take a firm stand on the issues, and stand by your agreement or disagreement on divisive issues regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It's better that way.
Click to expand...

You’re confusing two issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

Issue one: subjective opinions concerning abortion.

Issue two: the right to privacy, limiting government authority.

Those opposed to abortion are at liberty to seek an end to the practice provided those efforts comport with the Constitution, its case law, and a woman’s right to privacy – where the state has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

The problem is that you and others on the right advocate for more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of Americans at the expense of individual liberty when you support measures ‘banning’ abortion, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on a woman’s protected liberties.

The conflict isn’t about whether abortion is ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ the conflict concerns the wrongheaded ‘solution’ of ‘banning’ abortion – a ‘solution’ repugnant to the Constitution that serves only to further empower the state. 

You and others on the right need to take a firm stand in defense of the Constitution, regardless your subjective opinions concerning abortion.


----------



## Oddball

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated
> 
> 
> 
> You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently _disapprove_. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove. To have any issue with abortion in a moral sense, is to not give any support to something as tragic as abortion, and to take a stand against something that is appalling to your inner being, your soul, and your humanity. Walking the fence is unexceptable, and it signals a confusion on the issues on your part.
> 
> Take a firm stand on the issues, and stand by your agreement or disagreement on divisive issues regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It's better that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re confusing two issues, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Issue one: subjective opinions concerning abortion.
> 
> *Issue two: the right to privacy, limiting government authority.*
> 
> Those opposed to abortion are at liberty to seek an end to the practice provided those efforts comport with the Constitution, its case law, and a woman’s right to privacy – where the state has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
> 
> The problem is that you and others on the right advocate for more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of Americans at the expense of individual liberty when you support measures ‘banning’ abortion, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on a woman’s protected liberties.
> 
> The conflict isn’t about whether abortion is ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ the conflict concerns the wrongheaded ‘solution’ of ‘banning’ abortion – a ‘solution’ repugnant to the Constitution that serves only to further empower the state.
> 
> You and others on the right need to take a firm stand in defense of the Constitution, regardless your subjective opinions concerning abortion.
Click to expand...

A fifth columnist fuck like you couldn't care less about limiting gubmint authority, when expansion of that authority benefits your commie agenda......So...


----------



## Frankeneinstein

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated
> 
> 
> 
> You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently _disapprove_. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove. To have any issue with abortion in a moral sense, is to not give any support to something as tragic as abortion, and to take a stand against something that is appalling to your inner being, your soul, and your humanity. Walking the fence is unexceptable, and it signals a confusion on the issues on your part.
> 
> Take a firm stand on the issues, and stand by your agreement or disagreement on divisive issues regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It's better that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re confusing two issues, one having nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Issue one: subjective opinions concerning abortion.
> 
> Issue two: the right to privacy, limiting government authority.
> 
> Those opposed to abortion are at liberty to seek an end to the practice provided those efforts comport with the Constitution, its case law, and a woman’s right to privacy – where the state has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
> 
> The problem is that you and others on the right advocate for more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of Americans at the expense of individual liberty when you support measures ‘banning’ abortion, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on a woman’s protected liberties.
> 
> The conflict isn’t about whether abortion is ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ the conflict concerns the wrongheaded ‘solution’ of ‘banning’ abortion – a ‘solution’ repugnant to the Constitution that serves only to further empower the state.
> 
> You and others on the right need to take a firm stand in defense of the Constitution, regardless your subjective opinions concerning abortion.
Click to expand...

would you mind quoting the part of the constitution the framers used to back up your claim?


----------



## SweetSue92

DANG this thread is still going!! 

I bet the eggheads are still offering up the same tropes amirite?


----------



## Beyond

initforme said:


> Perhaps contraception should be taught....and the responsibilities of having kids should be taught.  Then young women can understand it and decide whether or not to have kids.  And it's ok to choose not getting pregnant.  The nation supports that.



What about the young man in question?  Does he have any reponsibility in this or is he just an empty sperm vessel being preyed on by some wicked woman?


----------



## Cecilie1200

SweetSue92 said:


> DANG this thread is still going!!
> 
> I bet the eggheads are still offering up the same tropes amirite?



When in doubt, they just pretend that the previous conversation never happened at all, and start spouting their talking points all over again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Beyond said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps contraception should be taught....and the responsibilities of having kids should be taught.  Then young women can understand it and decide whether or not to have kids.  And it's ok to choose not getting pregnant.  The nation supports that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the young man in question?  Does he have any reponsibility in this or is he just an empty sperm vessel being preyed on by some wicked woman?
Click to expand...


What about him, other than he apparently makes an excellent diversion from the topic?


----------



## dblack

SweetSue92 said:


> DANG this thread is still going!!



Yep. Trumpsters are trying to undermine the foundation of individual rights. Some of us are reluctant to give up on the concept of self-ownership. Some of us aren't on board with nationalism and have no interest in giving up our rights to the cult of the state.


----------



## Leo123

dblack said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DANG this thread is still going!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Trumpsters are trying to undermine the foundation of individual rights. Some of us are reluctant to give up on the concept of self-ownership. Some of us aren't on board with nationalism and have no interest in giving up our rights to the cult of the state.
Click to expand...


Multi-use statement....Just fill in the blanks...add a word or two and VIOLA!!!!  

Yep. Democrats are trying to undermine the foundation of individual rights. Some of us are reluctant to give up on the concept of self-ownership. Some of us are on board with nationalism and have no interest in giving up our rights to the cult of the socialist state.


----------



## denmark

LilOlLady said:


> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*


“all Men are *created *equal” ...
What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.

A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
*A person is created at birth.*


----------



## I c h i g o

denmark said:


> “all Men are *created *equal” ...



I believe you misunderstood what it even says. NOT all men are created equal.


----------



## miketx

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
Click to expand...

Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.


----------



## denmark

I c h i g o said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you misunderstood what it even says. NOT all men are created equal.
Click to expand...

I quoted another poster, who cited an old quote. 
Actually, no one is created equal to another.
Life is not fair, but we can try, if we are ethical.


----------



## miketx

denmark said:


> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you misunderstood what it even says. NOT all men are created equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted another poster, who cited an old quote.
> Actually, no one is created equal to another.
> Life is not fair, but we can try, if we are ethical.
Click to expand...

Everyone starts out equal, what happens after that is governed by fate, luck, heredity, and you.


----------



## denmark

miketx said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
Click to expand...

That’s your one-sided opinion.
A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.


----------



## denmark

miketx said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you misunderstood what it even says. NOT all men are created equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted another poster, who cited an old quote.
> Actually, no one is created equal to another.
> Life is not fair, but we can try, if we are ethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone starts out equal, what happens after that is governed by fate, luck, heredity, and you.
Click to expand...

Nope, everyone has unique DNA and few are born with opportunities like Trump.


----------



## beautress

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
Click to expand...

You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.

What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist. 

The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.


----------



## denmark

beautress said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
Click to expand...

That was a general non-specific rant.
Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?


----------



## LilOlLady

denmark said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
Click to expand...

When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.


----------



## LilOlLady

denmark said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?


----------



## miketx

denmark said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
Click to expand...

You hope so, seeing how there is no way to check for that yet, accurately.


----------



## denmark

LilOlLady said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
Click to expand...

Nope. A woman’s body and a man’s body are COMPLETELY in their own decision-making domains.
If a man transfers his semen to a woman, whether voluntary or rape, that sperm becomes the sole property of her body & mind (as well as husband’s in secondary order).
That developing mindless “human being” inside the woman’s body is completely dependent on her, both physically and her mind.

Do what you want with YOUR body. Don’t impose YOUR will on others. That’s anti-American, isn’t it?


----------



## LilOlLady

At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new *life* has begun....And it can be terminated by cutting off the life source which is the mother. Every human being shall have the right to life and human dignity; the life of the *fetus shall* be protected from the moment of conception. Article 67 The unborn shall be considered as born for all rights accorded within the limits established by law. The life of a *person* begins at conception. The *Unborn Victims of Violence Act* of 2004 (Public *Law* 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an *embryo *or *fetus* in* utero *as a* legal victim*, if they are *injured or killed* during the commission of any of over 60 listed *federal* crimes of *violence*.


----------



## denmark

LilOlLady said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
Click to expand...

Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.


----------



## JoeMoma

Abortion turns a nine month condition for the woman into a death sentence for the human inside of her.


----------



## LilOlLady

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. A woman’s body and a man’s body are COMPLETELY in their own decision-making domains.
> If a man transfers his semen to a woman, whether voluntary or rape, that sperm becomes the sole property of her body & mind (as well as husband’s in secondary order).
> That developing mindless “human being” inside the woman’s body is completely dependent on her, both physically and her mind.
> 
> Do what you want with YOUR body. Don’t impose YOUR will on others. That’s anti-American, isn’t it?
Click to expand...


----------



## denmark

LilOlLady said:


> At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new *life* has begun....And it can be terminated by cutting off the life source which is the mother. Every human being shall have the right to life and human dignity; the life of the *fetus shall* be protected from the moment of conception. Article 67 The unborn shall be considered as born for all rights accorded within the limits established by law. The life of a *person* begins at conception. The *Unborn Victims of Violence Act* of 2004 (Public *Law* 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an *embryo *or *fetus* in* utero *as a* legal victim*, if they are *injured or killed* during the commission of any of over 60 listed *federal* crimes of *violence*.


Aren’t you trying to put the square peg in the round hole? LOL.
That Federal act “protects” the fetus legally ONLY if the pregnant woman INTENDS to deliver the fetus to personhood and citizenship.
No?


----------



## LilOlLady

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
Click to expand...

Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became *a living soul*.
That is not to say that a *fetus isn't alive,* because it clearly is. So really, without some sort of religious or moral framework, there isn't any difference between *killing a person and cutting down a tree. *


----------



## denmark

LilOlLady said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became *a living soul*.
> That is not to say that a *fetus isn't alive,* because it clearly is. So really, without some sort of religious or moral framework, there isn't any difference between *killing a person and cutting down a tree. *
Click to expand...

Did Genesis say a woman came from a man’s rib and is responsible for all subsequent sins?
If so, that’s no “moral framework”.

A good moral framework is letting mindful & responsible people live their own lives.
Don’t kill them and don’t cut down trees unless you really have to.


----------



## miketx

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
Click to expand...

Yet if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts of murder, butcher.


----------



## denmark

miketx said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts of murder, butcher.
Click to expand...

That’s true only if the pregnant woman intended to deliver the fetus, pretender.


----------



## Third Party

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
Click to expand...

We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.


----------



## miketx

denmark said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts of murder, butcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s true only if the pregnant woman intended to deliver the fetus, pretender.
Click to expand...

You're a baby killing butcher.


----------



## denmark

Third Party said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
Click to expand...

Who?
Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.


----------



## Third Party

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
Click to expand...

Facts or link please.


----------



## denmark

miketx said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts of murder, butcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s true only if the pregnant woman intended to deliver the fetus, pretender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a baby killing butcher.
Click to expand...

And you are a freedom killing butcher.


----------



## Third Party

denmark said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> 
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts of murder, butcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s true only if the pregnant woman intended to deliver the fetus, pretender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a baby killing butcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are a freedom killing butcher.
Click to expand...

Morally speaking, which is worse?


----------



## denmark

Third Party said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
Click to expand...


----------



## denmark

Third Party said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts of murder, butcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s true only if the pregnant woman intended to deliver the fetus, pretender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a baby killing butcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are a freedom killing butcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morally speaking, which is worse?
Click to expand...

Which is worse, black or white thought?
Which is more simplistic, your Q or mine?


----------



## JoeMoma

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
Click to expand...

Iraq and Pakistan rank ahead of the USA on gender equality?  I would take that list with a grain of salt!


----------



## denmark

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
Click to expand...

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf


----------



## Third Party

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts of murder, butcher.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s true only if the pregnant woman intended to deliver the fetus, pretender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a baby killing butcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are a freedom killing butcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morally speaking, which is worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is worse, black or white thought?
> Which is more simplistic, your Q or mine?
Click to expand...

That's easy-black, and your Q(IQ).


----------



## denmark

JoeMoma said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Pakistan rank ahead of the USA on gender equality?  I would take that list with a grain of salt!
Click to expand...

Feel free to read the details. I provided the link to the FULL report.


----------



## JoeMoma

denmark said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Pakistan rank ahead of the USA on gender equality?  I would take that list with a grain of salt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to read the details. I provided the link to the FULL report.
Click to expand...

Iraq has a Supreme Leader who has to be a cleric of Islam (Male)  and women can be elected to any political office in the USA.  That is all I really need to know.  A head count of women and men that must be submissive to the male supreme leader does not  really mean Iraq is better with political gender equality than America.  In Iraq, the male supreme leader is.....supreme.  In America, there is a balance of powers and we have a female speaker of the house that actually has a lot of political power.

In America, women have equal opportunity to men to run for political office.  Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.


----------



## Third Party

JoeMoma said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Pakistan rank ahead of the USA on gender equality?  I would take that list with a grain of salt!
Click to expand...

That list is bogus! And what does the rank indicate, assaults per inner city?


----------



## Third Party

denmark said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
Click to expand...

The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Economic Forum. The report starts with this and other disclaimers. Not a good reference.


----------



## miketx

denmark said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Pakistan rank ahead of the USA on gender equality?  I would take that list with a grain of salt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to read the details. I provided the link to the FULL report.
Click to expand...

Fake news as usual troll.


----------



## satrebil

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
Click to expand...


If a fetus is not a person then there's a whole bunch of innocent people sitting in prison for killing one during the commission of a crime. You better start calling some judges.


----------



## satrebil

denmark said:


> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you misunderstood what it even says. NOT all men are created equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted another poster, who cited an old quote.
> Actually, no one is created equal to another.
> Life is not fair, but we can try, if we are ethical.
Click to expand...


You dare speak of ethics while you support slaughtering the unborn?

The mental gymnastics from you leftists is really a sight to behold.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a fetus is not a person then there's a whole bunch of innocent people sitting in prison for killing one during the commission of a crime. You better start calling some judges.
Click to expand...



...and yet, not one single woman in prison for aborting a fetus. 

Imagine that....


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Moonglow said:


> Never thought I'd see the day when republicans want total control over your body. It's not your body it belongs to the state and the church..And don't forget to work yer fingers to the bone..


feel this one slipping away do ya


----------



## dblack

satrebil said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a fetus is not a person then there's a whole bunch of innocent people sitting in prison for killing one during the commission of a crime. You better start calling some judges.
Click to expand...


Yep. They were conned.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
Click to expand...



My goodness -- somebody, somewhere made up some numbers!

It MUST be true. 

Can I interest you in some coastal property, child?


----------



## satrebil

Vandalshandle said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a fetus is not a person then there's a whole bunch of innocent people sitting in prison for killing one during the commission of a crime. You better start calling some judges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and yet, not one single woman in prison for aborting a fetus.
> 
> Imagine that....
Click to expand...


Just because the state sanctions an act doesn't mean the act morally or ethically correct.


----------



## Vandalshandle

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a fetus is not a person then there's a whole bunch of innocent people sitting in prison for killing one during the commission of a crime. You better start calling some judges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and yet, not one single woman in prison for aborting a fetus.
> 
> Imagine that....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the state sanctions an act doesn't mean the act morally or ethically correct.
Click to expand...


Well, we can agree on that! On the other hand, though, just because you think something s not morally correct does not lesson my case that it is morally correct.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

satrebil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a fetus is not a person then there's a whole bunch of innocent people sitting in prison for killing one during the commission of a crime. You better start calling some judges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and yet, not one single woman in prison for aborting a fetus.
> 
> Imagine that....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the state sanctions an act doesn't mean the act morally or ethically correct.
Click to expand...

No one said it did.

And for government to follow the Constitution by recognizing the right to privacy does not mean the state ‘sanctions’ an act.

Indeed, the right to privacy safeguards each citizens’ liberty to decide the matter for himself, to determine what is or is not morally or ethically correct consistent with his own good conscience, free from interference by the state.


----------



## LilOlLady

If women are aborting their babies because of economic reasons, it is a lot of bull shit because these young girls who have nothing, to begin with, are keeping their babies.

Casa De Vida
CASA DE VIDA / RENO, NV

*A LOVING HOME AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PREGNANT YOUNG WOMEN IN NEED.*


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> If women are aborting their babies because of economic reasons, it is a lot of bull shit because these young girls who have nothing, to begin with, are keeping their babies.
> 
> Casa De Vida
> CASA DE VIDA / RENO, NV
> 
> *A LOVING HOME AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PREGNANT YOUNG WOMEN IN NEED.*



Maybe they are aborting their FETUSES, because they have the constitutional right to make that decision without explaining it to you....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> If women are aborting their babies because of economic reasons, it is a lot of bull shit because these young girls who have nothing, to begin with, are keeping their babies.
> 
> Casa De Vida
> CASA DE VIDA / RENO, NV
> 
> *A LOVING HOME AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PREGNANT YOUNG WOMEN IN NEED.*


Nonsense.

Citizens aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the right to privacy.

A woman’s reason or reasons for ending her pregnancy are hers alone, having no bearing whatsoever on what another woman might decide.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Citizens aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the right to privacy.


Except where the second amendment is concerned.


> A woman’s reason or reasons for ending her pregnancy are hers alone, having no bearing whatsoever on what another woman might decide.


says who?


----------



## DOTR

SweetSue92 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like everyone to notice Sparky here had nothing to contribute relation to Abortion Talking Points. All he could do was whine about how conservatives don't love Statist Entitlements ENOUGH like comedian George Carlin does.
> 
> Well played Sparky you really made your point
Click to expand...



These people worship comedians for some reason. It’s where their deepest thoughtful come from. The romans had it right when they banned gladiators and actors from polite company.


----------



## LilOlLady

Murdering another living human being is not a fundamental right. This thinking puts us on the same plane as Hitler. A fetus is a living being from conception when cell began to divide and grow toward a full grown human being. Everything has a beginning and the fetus is the beginning of a growing human being.


----------



## dblack

LilOlLady said:


> Murdering another living human being is not a fundamental right.



Abortion a fetus isn't murdering another living human being. That's why it's called aborting a fetus and not "murdering another living human being". But please, go on with your strawman.


----------



## LilOlLady

dblack said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering another living human being is not a fundamental right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion a fetus isn't murdering another living human being. That's why it's called aborting a fetus and not "murdering another living human being". But please, go on with your strawman.
Click to expand...

You cannot abort a fetus if it is not alive. The fetus is alive and in the processing of being a human being. A human being is not delivered a full grown person by a stork. With your thinking, it is ok to kill a fetus anytime before birth?.. to *abort means* to *terminate*.., What is keeping the fetus alive and growing into a full termed baby.? I have never heard a women refer to her baby as a *"fetus" or "embryo" A child knows a fetus is a baby when as my grand daughter say 'Mama has a baby in her tummy"  You pro-choice people know its a baby in the tummy but admitting it you would have to admit abortions are murder. And that is a crime.*


----------



## LilOlLady

Fetal rights are the moral rights or legal rights of the human fetus under natural and civil law. .... foetal heart monitors and foetoscopy can clearly show us that the* fetus is alive*" and thus the born alive rule is *"outdated and indefensible".*


----------



## dblack

LilOlLady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering another living human being is not a fundamental right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion a fetus isn't murdering another living human being. That's why it's called aborting a fetus and not "murdering another living human being". But please, go on with your strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot abort a fetus if it is not alive. The fetus is alive and in the processing of being a human being. A human being is not delivered a full grown person by a stork. With your thinking, it is ok to kill a fetus anytime before birth?.. to *abort means* to *terminate*.., What is keeping the fetus alive and growing into a full termed baby.? I have never heard a women refer to her baby as a *"fetus" or "embryo" A child knows a fetus is a baby when as my grand daughter say 'Mama has a baby in her tummy"  You pro-choice people know its a baby in the tummy but admitting it you would have to admit abortions are murder. And that is a crime.*
Click to expand...


Whatever. I'm weary of the word games. But that's modern politics. Rather than make an argument and persuade people,  just play games with definitions. Keep changing them so that no one knows what they're voting for.

Traditionally, rationally, sanely, the demarcation point between a fetus and person has always been birth - the point where the fetus is separated from the mother's body and enters society as a person. That's where government's legitimate interest in the rights of the child begin. 

Pro-lifers want to move that demarcation point to somewhere before birth, somewhere inside the mother's body. I don't know if it's their intent, but this utterly undermines the individual rights of the mother and makes her a ward of the state.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> Fetal rights are the moral rights or legal rights of the human fetus under natural and civil law. .... foetal heart monitors and foetoscopy can clearly show us that the* fetus is alive*" and thus the born alive rule is *"outdated and indefensible".*


In your subjective opinion, not as a fact of law.


----------



## LilOlLady

God speaking to Jeremiah 1;5..."Before *I formed you in the womb I knew you*, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Luke 1;41...At the sound of Mary's greeting, *Elizabeth's child* leaped* within her*, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
I tend to believe the creator of life rather than the government. You fucking *hypocritical Christians. *


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the right to privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Except where the second amendment is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> A woman’s reason or reasons for ending her pregnancy are hers alone, having no bearing whatsoever on what another woman might decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says who?
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court.


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> God speaking to Jeremiah 1;5..."Before *I formed you in the womb I knew you*, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
> Luke 1;41...At the sound of Mary's greeting, *Elizabeth's child* leaped* within her*, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
> I tend to believe the creator of life rather than the government. You fucking *hypocritical Christians. *



And your belief in mythology gives you a higher moral argument? I don't think so.


----------



## beagle9

LilOlLady said:


> If women are aborting their babies because of economic reasons, it is a lot of bull shit because these young girls who have nothing, to begin with, are keeping their babies.
> 
> Casa De Vida
> CASA DE VIDA / RENO, NV
> 
> *A LOVING HOME AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PREGNANT YOUNG WOMEN IN NEED.*


It's always been bullcrap, because million's have been born out of wedlock, and they are happy they weren't aborted, and their mothers are over joyed that they didn't abort their babies after seeing the miracle of life growing right before their very eyes, and knowing that the baby will be and did become an important family member. She or he will be a genetic make up of the parents complete identity, and the baby having intrensic qualities matching that of the parents who are involved is just amazing.

There should be a pamphlet that gives a million reasons with examples of why not to abort your new family member in the making. Many poor mom's having went down the road of having unprotected sex with their boyfriend resulting in a pregnancy, don't realize that the baby will be their bestest friend in the world when all is said and done. Many friends and family members forsake struggling family members as not to be drowned by them as they are drowning in life (cold hard facts sometimes), but that child will never forsake that mother. Food for thought.


----------



## denmark

Third Party said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Economic Forum. The report starts with this and other disclaimers. Not a good reference.
Click to expand...

You sound like Trump. Cannot read beyond a few sentences? Don’t like details, yet you like to make childish conclusions?
The Gender Gap report has been sponsored by the World Economic Forum for a dozen years.
Here are words you missed:

_“The Global Gender Gap Index was first introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2006 as a framework for capturing the magnitude of gender-based disparities and tracking their progress over time. This year’s edition of the report benchmarks 149 countries on their progress towards gender parity on a *scale from 0 (disparity) to 1 (parity) *across four thematic dimensions—the subindexes Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and *Political Empowerment*.”
_
The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. USA has over 80% men in Congress and never a woman President.

If you think the report is bogus, go ahead and show us how, but first READ the relevant sections and provide statistical or conceptual evidence. Are you capable of that?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> The Supreme Court.


very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
Click to expand...


Look, Noah Webster, trying to base your point on a modernized and functionally-illiterate understanding of the English language is not going to take you very far, and basing it on "This is SCIENCE, because it's how it appears to me!" won't take you anywhere at all.

First, "men" in archaic parlance often translated into "humans" or "people", as it did in that phrase.  That hyper-sensitive, panty-chapped neo-savages like you have decided to make a big fucking hairy deal out of singling out sexes means exactly fuck and all to words written a long time ago.

Second, a fetus is not part of a woman's body.  Ever.  And there is nothing about birth which magically creates a person out of something else.  I've given birth to three children myself, and been present at the births of many others.  I promise you that, no matter what your Mommy told you, there were no fairy godmothers, magic wands, or sparkling puffs of glitter present.


----------



## Cecilie1200

miketx said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
Click to expand...


Even that is not scientifically correct.  That is, however, usually the first verifiable sign which can be identified by doctors.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you misunderstood what it even says. NOT all men are created equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted another poster, who cited an old quote.
> Actually, no one is created equal to another.
> Life is not fair, but we can try, if we are ethical.
Click to expand...


"Equal" and "fair" do not mean the same thing, Cro-Mag.  Nor do "equal" and "alike" mean the same thing.

We are all created equal, in that we are all humans and all possessing intrinsic value and deserving of the same recognition of that value.  That talking to you is equivalent to having a conversation with any uglier version of my dog, for example, does not negate the fact that you are - presumably - just as much a human being as I am and morally, ethically, and legally entitled to the same rights as I am.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
Click to expand...


Which I'm sure you've observed in all the people around you who aren't struggling with your room-temperature IQ.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you misunderstood what it even says. NOT all men are created equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted another poster, who cited an old quote.
> Actually, no one is created equal to another.
> Life is not fair, but we can try, if we are ethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone starts out equal, what happens after that is governed by fate, luck, heredity, and you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, everyone has unique DNA and few are born with opportunities like Trump.
Click to expand...


Which also has fuck and all to do with that phrase, lackwit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
Click to expand...


Well, she may want to reiterate for the 158648964 time that an unborn baby is NOT part of a woman's body, but since you were you too piss-stupid to understand that all the other times, I can't see what use it would serve.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. A woman’s body and a man’s body are COMPLETELY in their own decision-making domains.
> If a man transfers his semen to a woman, whether voluntary or rape, that sperm becomes the sole property of her body & mind (as well as husband’s in secondary order).
> That developing mindless “human being” inside the woman’s body is completely dependent on her, both physically and her mind.
> 
> Do what you want with YOUR body. Don’t impose YOUR will on others. That’s anti-American, isn’t it?
Click to expand...


I don't think YOU need to be championing mindlessness as a good reason for killing people who are inconvenient.  And you DEFINITELY don't need to be prattling about how "American" it is.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Butcher, a person is there when it has a heart beat.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became *a living soul*.
> That is not to say that a *fetus isn't alive,* because it clearly is. So really, without some sort of religious or moral framework, there isn't any difference between *killing a person and cutting down a tree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Genesis say a woman came from a man’s rib and is responsible for all subsequent sins?
> If so, that’s no “moral framework”.
> 
> A good moral framework is letting mindful & responsible people live their own lives.
> Don’t kill them and don’t cut down trees unless you really have to.
Click to expand...


Is the Bible now your standard for judging the rightness and wrongness of behavior?    If not, then whipping it out and touting it as the "Aha!" answer to advanced medical science falls even flatter than otherwise.  And trust me, it was a shit argument anyway.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
Click to expand...


"We are way ahead NOT, because I've never been outside my country and the media TOLD me that the US utterly sucks!"

Get your head out of the left's ass for two seconds and think, you colon-sniffing meatwad.  Do women in this country get raped and then executed for "adultery"?  No, I don't believe they do.  Do their own husbands and fathers and brothers beat them to death for going out of the house without being swathed head to heels in black cloth?  No, I don't believe they do.  Do women in this country get to hold jobs, drive, and vote free of life-threatening reprisals?

As an American woman, I shit on your ignorant attempt to glorify regimes that would treat me like chattel in service to your putrid agenda and self-satisfaction.  How DARE you devalue and dismiss my rights so cavalierly, you misogynistic beef-witted stump?


----------



## beautress

denmark said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. A woman’s body and a man’s body are COMPLETELY in their own decision-making domains.
> If a man transfers his semen to a woman, whether voluntary or rape, that sperm becomes the sole property of her body & mind (as well as husband’s in secondary order).
> That developing mindless “human being” inside the woman’s body is completely dependent on her, both physically and her mind.
> 
> Do what you want with YOUR body. Don’t impose YOUR will on others. That’s anti-American, isn’t it?
Click to expand...

What you do with YOUR body stops at going after another human being's DNA at whatever stage it is in. Roe v. Wade made an egregious mistake, and as a consequence, this nation has killed as many human beings as Mao did hiding behind the flak of WWII to get rid of Chinese sects he personally hated for not believing he was a living diety. Here, women are being spoon-fed shit that they are the diety of the child. That is a bald faced lie and it is far from the truth as murder being the answer to minor disagreements among men.

We need to reconsider Roe v. Wade. God demands it of us. If we do not, he will send great enemies against us who will prevail to kill twice as many of us as Roe v. Wade did. You do not want to see that side of the Almighty, but you will if you do not stop the madness of killing other people just because they can't form a fist and knock your vicious teeth out.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.
Click to expand...


I do not. And the reason I do not is because if the SC reverses themselves, then the abortion issue goes to the states. If that happens, there are 12 to 15 states which will never outlaw abortion, which means that any US citizen can have a legal abortion performed simply by visiting one of those states. If that is a problem, there are now drugs available over the counter and through the mail from Europe that one can order and one can induce their own abortion at home, 

In short, Frank, it is a win/win for personal freedom and privacy, and a lose/lose for government invasion of privacy and control over my wife and daughter's bodies. Get over it.


----------



## LilOlLady

Cecilie1200 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s your one-sided opinion.
> A functioning brain is a better measure of life, you comatose nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became *a living soul*.
> That is not to say that a *fetus isn't alive,* because it clearly is. So really, without some sort of religious or moral framework, there isn't any difference between *killing a person and cutting down a tree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Genesis say a woman came from a man’s rib and is responsible for all subsequent sins?
> If so, that’s no “moral framework”.
> 
> A good moral framework is letting mindful & responsible people live their own lives.
> Don’t kill them and don’t cut down trees unless you really have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the Bible now your standard for judging the rightness and wrongness of behavior?    If not, then whipping it out and touting it as the "Aha!" answer to advanced medical science falls even flatter than otherwise.  And trust me, it was a shit argument anyway.
Click to expand...

I will always believe the bible before the imperfect men of science or government, etc.


----------



## LilOlLady

beautress said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. A woman’s body and a man’s body are COMPLETELY in their own decision-making domains.
> If a man transfers his semen to a woman, whether voluntary or rape, that sperm becomes the sole property of her body & mind (as well as husband’s in secondary order).
> That developing mindless “human being” inside the woman’s body is completely dependent on her, both physically and her mind.
> 
> Do what you want with YOUR body. Don’t impose YOUR will on others. That’s anti-American, isn’t it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you do with YOUR body stops at going after another human being's DNA at whatever stage it is in. Roe v. Wade made an egregious mistake, and as a consequence, this nation has killed as many human beings as Mao did hiding behind the flak of WWII to get rid of Chinese sects he personally hated for not believing he was a living diety. Here, women are being spoon-fed shit that they are the diety of the child. That is a bald faced lie and it is far from the truth as murder being the answer to minor disagreements among men.
> 
> We need to reconsider Roe v. Wade. God demands it of us. If we do not, he will send great enemies against us who will prevail to kill twice as many of us as Roe v. Wade did. You do not want to see that side of the Almighty, but you will if you do not stop the madness of killing other people just because they can't form a fist and knock your vicious teeth out.
Click to expand...

Galatians 6:7: “Do not be deceived, *God is not mocked*; for whatever a man *sows*, this he will also *reap*.”


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of disabled people who do not have a functioning brain. Do you suggest they be euthanized?
> 
> 
> 
> Were they born? I assume so, since you said “people”.
> A fetus is not a person (with citizenship).
> Unless they or their legal guardians want euthanasia, disabled PERSONS should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became *a living soul*.
> That is not to say that a *fetus isn't alive,* because it clearly is. So really, without some sort of religious or moral framework, there isn't any difference between *killing a person and cutting down a tree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Genesis say a woman came from a man’s rib and is responsible for all subsequent sins?
> If so, that’s no “moral framework”.
> 
> A good moral framework is letting mindful & responsible people live their own lives.
> Don’t kill them and don’t cut down trees unless you really have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the Bible now your standard for judging the rightness and wrongness of behavior?    If not, then whipping it out and touting it as the "Aha!" answer to advanced medical science falls even flatter than otherwise.  And trust me, it was a shit argument anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will always believe the bible before the imperfect men of science or government, etc.
Click to expand...


...because the men who wrote the bible were perfect men of science and government....


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
Click to expand...


Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?

From your link:
*
"• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second* and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and *the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%).* This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; *Iraq,* Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while *the other new entrants rank lower."
*
"Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and *the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."
*
Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common:  they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.

"The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. *Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap*, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."

The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Pakistan rank ahead of the USA on gender equality?  I would take that list with a grain of salt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to read the details. I provided the link to the FULL report.
Click to expand...


And it said exactly the opposite of what you tried to use it to prove.  Bravo, fuckpuddle.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> If women are aborting their babies because of economic reasons, it is a lot of bull shit because these young girls who have nothing, to begin with, are keeping their babies.
> 
> Casa De Vida
> CASA DE VIDA / RENO, NV
> 
> *A LOVING HOME AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PREGNANT YOUNG WOMEN IN NEED.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they are aborting their FETUSES, because they have the constitutional right to make that decision without explaining it to you....
Click to expand...


Maybe "fetus" and "baby" mean the same thing, the left's claims that abortion is somehow in the Constitution are bald-faced lies, and you're one of the stupidest bipeds stumbling around the planet.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> 
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Economic Forum. The report starts with this and other disclaimers. Not a good reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like Trump. Cannot read beyond a few sentences? Don’t like details, yet you like to make childish conclusions?
> The Gender Gap report has been sponsored by the World Economic Forum for a dozen years.
> Here are words you missed:
> 
> _“The Global Gender Gap Index was first introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2006 as a framework for capturing the magnitude of gender-based disparities and tracking their progress over time. This year’s edition of the report benchmarks 149 countries on their progress towards gender parity on a *scale from 0 (disparity) to 1 (parity) *across four thematic dimensions—the subindexes Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and *Political Empowerment*.”
> _
> The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. USA has over 80% men in Congress and never a woman President.
> 
> If you think the report is bogus, go ahead and show us how, but first READ the relevant sections and provide statistical or conceptual evidence. Are you capable of that?
Click to expand...


I already posted the words YOU missed, where they said the exact opposite of what you claim they do.  Next time, don't just read the first page and then copy the pictures your Internet masters told you to.


----------



## beautress

LilOlLady said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. A woman’s body and a man’s body are COMPLETELY in their own decision-making domains.
> If a man transfers his semen to a woman, whether voluntary or rape, that sperm becomes the sole property of her body & mind (as well as husband’s in secondary order).
> That developing mindless “human being” inside the woman’s body is completely dependent on her, both physically and her mind.
> 
> Do what you want with YOUR body. Don’t impose YOUR will on others. That’s anti-American, isn’t it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you do with YOUR body stops at going after another human being's DNA at whatever stage it is in. Roe v. Wade made an egregious mistake, and as a consequence, this nation has killed as many human beings as Mao did hiding behind the flak of WWII to get rid of Chinese sects he personally hated for not believing he was a living diety. Here, women are being spoon-fed shit that they are the diety of the child. That is a bald faced lie and it is far from the truth as murder being the answer to minor disagreements among men.
> 
> We need to reconsider Roe v. Wade. God demands it of us. If we do not, he will send great enemies against us who will prevail to kill twice as many of us as Roe v. Wade did. You do not want to see that side of the Almighty, but you will if you do not stop the madness of killing other people just because they can't form a fist and knock your vicious teeth out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Galatians 6:7: “Do not be deceived, *God is not mocked*; for whatever a man *sows*, this he will also *reap*.”
Click to expand...

And for the human being a woman murders that is not her dna, she's the one mocking God's gift to her and her bed partner. Next time you hear an angry voice of someone who murdered her child, you will know what anger God has when one of his creation gifts is mocked with annihilation by an excrutiatingly painful death and dismemberment by abortion. God's principles for decent living are ten. One of them is "thou shalt not kill," and you will find it in the twentieth chapter of Exodus.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> I do not. And the reason I do not is because if the SC reverses themselves, then the abortion issue goes to the states. If that happens, there are 12 to 15 states which will never outlaw abortion, which means that any US citizen can have a legal abortion performed simply by visiting one of those states. If that is a problem, there are now drugs available over the counter and through the mail from Europe that one can order and one can induce their own abortion at home,
> 
> In short, Frank, it is a win/win for personal freedom and privacy, and a lose/lose for government invasion of privacy and control over my wife and daughter's bodies. Get over it.


That's all well and good, but the question was "says who"? I hope abortion remains legal, but to allow the likes of you and others to insult our intelligence with "it's unconstitutional" when anyone outside the public school system knows it is nothing more than an intentional misinterpretation of the constitution...
...the GOP wants it back to the states, they can then one state at a time dismantle legal abortion by taking over state legislature for short periods of time for that purpose, all while you pat yourself on the back for your win/win situation...
...and if you like/agree with even the tiniest form of gun control [or PC of any kind] you have no standing on constitutional issues and do not belong trying to explain anyones rights to others, now deal with it V.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Frankeneinstein said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the right to privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Except where the second amendment is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> A woman’s reason or reasons for ending her pregnancy are hers alone, having no bearing whatsoever on what another woman might decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says who?
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Citizens aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Indeed, as is the case with the Second Amendment right, the right to privacy is not absolute – it is lawful for the states to prohibit an abortion after a certain time period; likewise, the states may place limits and restriction on the possession of firearms, provided when government places restrictions of the right to privacy or the Second Amendment right those restrictions are consistent with the relevant case law.  

Just as it’s un-Constitutional for government to ban the possession of handguns, so too is it un-Constitutional for the government to ban abortions.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not. And the reason I do not is because if the SC reverses themselves, then the abortion issue goes to the states. If that happens, there are 12 to 15 states which will never outlaw abortion, which means that any US citizen can have a legal abortion performed simply by visiting one of those states. If that is a problem, there are now drugs available over the counter and through the mail from Europe that one can order and one can induce their own abortion at home,
> 
> In short, Frank, it is a win/win for personal freedom and privacy, and a lose/lose for government invasion of privacy and control over my wife and daughter's bodies. Get over it.
Click to expand...

btw, with the exception of my screen name that entire post is just a parroting of things that have been said repeatedly by the liberal media over 50 years until it became embedded  memory for those pretending to engage in insightful debate.

Abortion it is not a matter of privacy, it is merely for convenience sake, nothing noble in it for anyone.


----------



## LilOlLady

"Right to privacy" is not a constitutional right to abortions. There is no “right to abortion” in the Constitution. ...


----------



## beautress

Cecilie1200 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second* and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and *the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%).* This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; *Iraq,* Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while *the other new entrants rank lower."
> *
> "Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and *the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."
> *
> Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common:  they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.
> 
> "The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. *Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap*, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."
> 
> The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.
Click to expand...

When you get the turds out of your nasty mouth, I will consider taking you off ignore. Meantime, may your evil curses come right back to the practicing witch that you have made of yourself.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> Murdering another living human being is not a fundamental right. This thinking puts us on the same plane as Hitler. A fetus is a living being from conception when cell began to divide and grow toward a full grown human being. Everything has a beginning and the fetus is the beginning of a growing human being.


Murder is legal doctrine relegated solely to criminal law, having nothing whatsoever to do with the right to privacy that prohibits the states from compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

Murder is the unlawful taking of the life of a person entitled to Constitutional protections.

As a fact of settled, accepted law, an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' is not entitled to Constitutional protections, where the termination of a pregnancy is not ‘murder.’

Consequently, references to ‘murder’ with regard to the right to privacy fail as a red herring fallacy, and the ‘argument’ made by those hostile to privacy right likewise fails.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

George Carlin was a bitter old left wing bigot who should have been aborted.


----------



## Cecilie1200

beautress said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> 
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second* and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and *the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%).* This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; *Iraq,* Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while *the other new entrants rank lower."
> *
> "Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and *the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."
> *
> Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common:  they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.
> 
> "The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. *Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap*, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."
> 
> The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you get the turds out of your nasty mouth, I will consider taking you off ignore. Meantime, may your evil curses come right back to the practicing witch that you are.
Click to expand...


When you pull the stick out of your ass, I will consider caring whether you like my posts or not.  But probably not.  Next time you get your panties in a wedge, pick it out silently and assume that no one but you cares.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Citizens aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.


no but they are required to justify a right that cannot be found in the constitution though



> Indeed, as is the case with the Second Amendment right, the right to privacy is not absolute – it is lawful for the states to prohibit an abortion after a certain time period; likewise, the states may place limits and restriction on the possession of firearms, provided when government places restrictions of the right to privacy or the Second Amendment right those restrictions are consistent with the relevant case law.



it would have made more sense to address this to vandal than me, oh well...
...and the right to to bear arms is clearly not to be abridged by any congressional law[it' actually says that in the constitution], and if our right to privacy is not absolute then it should be, but to claim that abortion falls into that category [which is a stretch even in legal terms] takes us back to the question you tried not to answer by using age old libralese language ..."says who"?



> Just as it’s un-Constitutional for government to ban the possession of handguns, so too is it un-Constitutional for the government to ban abortions.


Says who? the government not banning the right to bear arms is directly spelled out, the constitution makes no such distinction for abortion...but that is just strawman distraction, answering the question "says who?" will allow you to see who can or cannot ban abortion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.
Click to expand...

Correct.

In fact, those hostile to privacy rights need to be careful of what they wish for.

Should the Court overturn _Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey/Whole Woman’s Health_, the states would remain at liberty to recognize a woman’s right to privacy – and abortion will remain legal in most of the United States.

States that refuse to acknowledge the right to privacy will suffer a considerable political backlash; indeed, some states which might have considered ‘banning’ abortion may elect to not do so for that very reason.

And of course women will continue to have abortions in states where the procedure is ‘banned,’ or travel to states where the right to privacy is still recognized to terminate their pregnancies.

This illustrates the fact that those hostile to privacy rights aren’t really concerned about ‘saving babies’ or ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the authoritarian right seeking to compel conformity and punishing dissent, it’s about conservatives wanting more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of citizens.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not. And the reason I do not is because if the SC reverses themselves, then the abortion issue goes to the states. If that happens, there are 12 to 15 states which will never outlaw abortion, which means that any US citizen can have a legal abortion performed simply by visiting one of those states. If that is a problem, there are now drugs available over the counter and through the mail from Europe that one can order and one can induce their own abortion at home,
> 
> In short, Frank, it is a win/win for personal freedom and privacy, and a lose/lose for government invasion of privacy and control over my wife and daughter's bodies. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> btw, with the exception of my screen name that entire post is just a parroting of things that have been said repeatedly by the liberal media over 50 years until it became embedded  memory for those pretending to engage in insightful debate.
> 
> Abortion it is not a matter of privacy, it is merely for convenience sake, nothing noble in it for anyone.
Click to expand...


Well, now, Frank, if the right to privacy has been quoted by liberals for 50 years as a justification for the right to have an abortion, there is a reason for that. The reason is because that was exactly the prevailing argument of Roe Vs. Wade. In short, I have no idea why your panties are in a wad about the term being used.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> In fact, those hostile to privacy rights need to be careful of what they wish for.
> 
> Should the Court overturn _Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey/Whole Woman’s Health_, the states would remain at liberty to recognize a woman’s right to privacy – and abortion will remain legal in most of the United States.
> 
> States that refuse to acknowledge the right to privacy will suffer a considerable political backlash; indeed, some states which might have considered ‘banning’ abortion may elect to not do so for that very reason.
> 
> And of course women will continue to have abortions in states where the procedure is ‘banned,’ or travel to states where the right to privacy is still recognized to terminate their pregnancies.
> 
> This illustrates the fact that those hostile to privacy rights aren’t really concerned about ‘saving babies’ or ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the authoritarian right seeking to compel conformity and punishing dissent, it’s about conservatives wanting more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of citizens.
Click to expand...

Not a lot to disagree with but again, we cannot continue honest debate if you keep insisting "abortion" and "privacy" are one and the same...they are not...those who really do value the right to privacy are very afraid of those who would allow it to be undermined by using it as a shield to get something else they really want by sacrificing this right, if abortion is to become a thing of the past I have no doubt the left will destroy that right to privacy as punishment for not getting their way.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> In fact, those hostile to privacy rights need to be careful of what they wish for.
> 
> Should the Court overturn _Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey/Whole Woman’s Health_, the states would remain at liberty to recognize a woman’s right to privacy – and abortion will remain legal in most of the United States.
> 
> States that refuse to acknowledge the right to privacy will suffer a considerable political backlash; indeed, some states which might have considered ‘banning’ abortion may elect to not do so for that very reason.
> 
> And of course women will continue to have abortions in states where the procedure is ‘banned,’ or travel to states where the right to privacy is still recognized to terminate their pregnancies.
> 
> This illustrates the fact that those hostile to privacy rights aren’t really concerned about ‘saving babies’ or ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the authoritarian right seeking to compel conformity and punishing dissent, it’s about conservatives wanting more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a lot to disagree with but again, we cannot continue honest debate if you keep insisting "abortion" and "privacy" are one and the same...they are not...those who really do value the right to privacy are very afraid of those who would allow it to be undermined by using it as a shield to get something else they really want by sacrificing this right, if abortion is to become a thing of the past I have no doubt the left will destroy that right to privacy as punishment for not getting their way.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you should take this up with the SC. The right to privacy being the reason for the prevailing of the ruling of Roe Vs. Wade was their opinion, not mine.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, now, Frank, if the right to privacy has been quoted by liberals for 50 years as a justification for the right to have an abortion, there is a reason for that. The reason is because that was exactly the prevailing argument of Roe Vs. Wade.


of course there is a reason for it being quoted for 50 years, and of course you got it wrong, you had a left leaning court, you no longer do, if this court will most likely remove the word "PREVAILING" from your argument



> In short, I have no idea why your panties are in a wad about the term being used.


try not using it then...that will give you more than just an idea why you wonder about men in panties.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> Sounds like you should take this up with the SC. The right to privacy being the reason for the prevailing of the ruling of Roe Vs. Wade was their opinion, not mine.


You seem to now be wondering aimlessly through this discussion V...it IS going to be taken up with the SC, that is why it was so important that I get you [or anyone] to claim  "SAYS WHO" was the SC...so when the decision is overturned/reversed you will no longer want pretend their decision is the correct one as you do now.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LilOlLady said:


> Murdering another living human being is not a fundamental right. This thinking puts us on the same plane as Hitler. A fetus is a living being from conception when cell began to divide and grow toward a full grown human being. Everything has a beginning and the fetus is the beginning of a growing human being.


The problem with this sophistry, of course, is that in order for it to be valid, it must be applied consistently – where the state would need to do more than just ‘ban’ abortion, it would also need to ‘ban’ all manner of birth control, including condoms, IUDs, and the pill.


----------



## LilOlLady

Unborn babies can *feel pain by 20 weeks* gestation or earlier ...I worked in the abortion ward of L. A. County General Hospital when abortions become legal and I was with these women when their babies were expelled and all of the* fetus/babies* were moving. I can imagine their pain when some were dismembered in the womb and the life source of oxygen were cut off. Utah recently passed a law that requires doctors to give *anesthesia to a fetus prior to performing an abortion *that occurs at 20 weeks of gestation or later. I quit nursing in general and went into geriatrics and mental health nursing.


----------



## beautress

LilOlLady said:


> Unborn babies can *feel pain by 20 weeks* gestation or earlier ...I worked in the abortion ward of L. A. County General Hospital when abortions become legal and I was with these women when their babies were expelled and all of the* fetus/babies* were moving. I can imagine their pain when some were dismembered in the womb and the life source of oxygen were cut off. Utah recently passed a law that requires doctors to give *anesthesia to a fetus prior to performing an abortion *that occurs at 20 weeks of gestation or later. I quit nursing in general and went into geriatrics and mental health nursing.


Current scientific studies tell us you were right all along. The pain the fetus is not only horrific, when the abortion equipment first starts prodding the small human being inside his mother, he engages in violent jerks to avoid getting further poked up to the instant he suffers death. It is horrific for the fetus. And his DNA tells us he is not the same person his mother nor the abortionist is. DNA does not lie. It is the scientific and truthful evidence that it is a separate human being in its initial stages of life from the time it is two identical cells. Even as far back in human history as Psalm 139 is, it has a spirit too that wants to be covered in God's safety net for the rest of its life.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you should take this up with the SC. The right to privacy being the reason for the prevailing of the ruling of Roe Vs. Wade was their opinion, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to now be wondering aimlessly through this discussion V...it IS going to be taken up with the SC, that is why it was so important that I get you [or anyone] to claim  "SAYS WHO" was the SC...so when the decision is overturned/reversed you will no longer want pretend their decision is the correct one as you do now.
Click to expand...


There is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.

But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...


----------



## Third Party

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> 
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Economic Forum. The report starts with this and other disclaimers. Not a good reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like Trump. Cannot read beyond a few sentences? Don’t like details, yet you like to make childish conclusions?
> The Gender Gap report has been sponsored by the World Economic Forum for a dozen years.
> Here are words you missed:
> 
> _“The Global Gender Gap Index was first introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2006 as a framework for capturing the magnitude of gender-based disparities and tracking their progress over time. This year’s edition of the report benchmarks 149 countries on their progress towards gender parity on a *scale from 0 (disparity) to 1 (parity) *across four thematic dimensions—the subindexes Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and *Political Empowerment*.”
> _
> The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. USA has over 80% men in Congress and never a woman President.
> 
> If you think the report is bogus, go ahead and show us how, but first READ the relevant sections and provide statistical or conceptual evidence. Are you capable of that?
Click to expand...

Capable but unwilling. I saw nonsense reports like this in college. If it were A Tale of Two Cities, the beginning might read "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, but does not necessarily reflect the view of the author". To be fair, if others on the USMB back you up, I will read and assess the report.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> There is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.


Sounds like the legal argument your making  for abortion



> But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...


lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the legal argument your making  for abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?
Click to expand...


Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.


I see the privacy argument has gone by the wayside


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.


SAYS WHO?


----------



## beautress

Vandalshandle said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the legal argument your making  for abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken, Vandal'shandle. The truth is right and correct always. Aborting a baby is bad for humans, in particular, women. The truth that cannot go away is the truth that a fetus does not have his mother's DNA except for bits and pieces, same with the father. Some of those DNA markers cross over and give a child a trait never before seen in his line or in rare cases, no one elses. Crossing over DNA may be how great diversity is found throughout nature.I'll post tomorrow, I'm too tired to post right now with a persistent cough, lowgrade fever, and new meds from the doctor waiting to be picked up when my car gets out of the repair shop tomorrow or the Tuesday. 'Evening.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> SAYS WHO?
Click to expand...


Says me and my family. And, we are comforted by the fact that no woman has ever been incarcerated and convicted of anything for getting an abortion, and it will not happen in the future, either. But if the SC overturns Row Vs Wade, and if California then outlaws abortion, and if the over the counter drugs available in Europe that induce abortion at home become unavailable, be sure to send me a PM. As for the privacy issue, I really don't give a rat's ass. We are pro-choice, and that is here to stay.


----------



## Vandalshandle

beautress said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the legal argument your making  for abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken, Vandal'shandle. The truth is right and correct always. Aborting a baby is bad for humans, in particular, women. The truth that cannot go away is the truth that a fetus does not have his mother's DNA except for bits and pieces, same with the father. Some of those DNA markers cross over and give a child a trait never before seen in his line or in rare cases, no one elses. Crossing over DNA may be how great diversity is found throughout nature.I'll post tomorrow, I'm too tired to post right now with a persistent cough, lowgrade fever, and new meds from the doctor waiting to be picked up when my car gets out of the repair shop tomorrow or the Tuesday. 'Evening.
Click to expand...


Interesting. But, irrelevant to me.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Private Property Of The Mother "*

** Pleading For Exception From Exploitation **

The histrionics from sanctimonious puritans seeking a uniform fetish to quell their anxiety about mortality as they plead contentions for innocence , fail to recognize that the realism is less than compelling for those of us who have lived among their damned dirty apes .


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> SAYS WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says me and my family. And, we are comforted by the fact that no woman has ever been incarcerated and convicted of anything for getting an abortion, and it will not happen in the future, either. But if the SC overturns Row Vs Wade, and if California then outlaws abortion, and if the over the counter drugs available in Europe that induce abortion at home become unavailable, be sure to send me a PM. As for the privacy issue, I really don't give a rat's ass. We are pro-choice, and that is here to stay.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but that still doesn't make or prove abortion is a constitutional right...never did never will


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> SAYS WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says me and my family. And, we are comforted by the fact that no woman has ever been incarcerated and convicted of anything for getting an abortion, and it will not happen in the future, either. But if the SC overturns Row Vs Wade, and if California then outlaws abortion, and if the over the counter drugs available in Europe that induce abortion at home become unavailable, be sure to send me a PM. As for the privacy issue, I really don't give a rat's ass. We are pro-choice, and that is here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be right, but that still doesn't make or prove abortion is a constitutional right...never did never will
Click to expand...


Fine with me, as long as it is available. if all else fails, we simply go back to the 1960's, when there were no abortions, and millions of D & C's.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the legal argument your making  for abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken, Vandal'shandle. The truth is right and correct always. Aborting a baby is bad for humans, in particular, women. The truth that cannot go away is the truth that a fetus does not have his mother's DNA except for bits and pieces, same with the father. Some of those DNA markers cross over and give a child a trait never before seen in his line or in rare cases, no one elses. Crossing over DNA may be how great diversity is found throughout nature.I'll post tomorrow, I'm too tired to post right now with a persistent cough, lowgrade fever, and new meds from the doctor waiting to be picked up when my car gets out of the repair shop tomorrow or the Tuesday. 'Evening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. But, irrelevant to me.
Click to expand...

Not one of your posts were relevant to the constitutionality of abortion, they were just about what you wanted.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Private Property Of The Mother "*
> 
> ** Pleading For Exception From Exploitation **
> 
> The histrionics from sanctimonious puritans seeking a uniform fetish to quell their anxiety about mortality as they plead contentions for innocence , fail to recognize that the realism is less than compelling for those of us who have lived among their damned dirty apes .


That's a worthy plea, but it should be amended/emended to recognize that the sanctimony has changed hands and realized that the last line makes it nothing more than a name calling rant borne out of frustration, otherwise it is a fine description/example of the need for mercy and understanding.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the legal argument your making  for abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken, Vandal'shandle. The truth is right and correct always. Aborting a baby is bad for humans, in particular, women. The truth that cannot go away is the truth that a fetus does not have his mother's DNA except for bits and pieces, same with the father. Some of those DNA markers cross over and give a child a trait never before seen in his line or in rare cases, no one elses. Crossing over DNA may be how great diversity is found throughout nature.I'll post tomorrow, I'm too tired to post right now with a persistent cough, lowgrade fever, and new meds from the doctor waiting to be picked up when my car gets out of the repair shop tomorrow or the Tuesday. 'Evening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. But, irrelevant to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one of your posts were relevant to the constitutionality of abortion, they were just about what you wanted.
Click to expand...


And the title of this thread does not even mention the constitution. Seriously, I don't know what is the bug up your ass.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> Fine with me, as long as it is available. if all else fails, we simply go back to the 1960's, when there were no abortions, and millions of D & C's.


always a way around the constitution and the law eh bro?...do the rights of the females in your family also help you to keep the minority population down?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine with me, as long as it is available. if all else fails, we simply go back to the 1960's, when there were no abortions, and millions of D & C's.
> 
> 
> 
> always a way around the constitution and the law eh bro?...do the rights of the females in your family also help you to keep the minority population down?
Click to expand...


Failed attempt at deflection.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> And the title of this thread does not even mention the constitution. Seriously, I don't know what is the bug up your ass.



just more pillar to post excuses...keeping it legal is not a problem for me, but pretending the constitution says something it does not say is bad enough, but in the very next breath claiming it does not say something that it clearly states [spells out even] is absolute proof of which side of the aisle has no respect for the document..as for the title the OP is musing over the worst talking points for abortion, most of which you are guilty and not the least of which is the constitutionality of abortion and your "rats azz" approach to it.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> Failed attempt at deflection.


gee, that must be the real reason you didn't answer the question...the lame deflection was introducing the female members of your family as hapless victims while really just playing emotional politics, you don't have to answer, but that doesn't mean everyone here cannot see how you feel about keeping the minority population down.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Failed attempt at deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gee, that must be the real reason you didn't answer the question...the lame deflection was introducing the female members of your family as hapless victims while really just playing emotional politics, you don't have to answer, but that doesn't mean everyone here cannot see how you feel about keeping the minority population down.
Click to expand...


Go to bed, Frank. Somebody needs a nap.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> Go to bed, Frank. Somebody needs a nap.


Yeah OK, and we'll just forget all about that nasty little minority thing right?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Frankeneinstein said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to bed, Frank. Somebody needs a nap.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah OK, and we'll just forget all about that nasty little minority thing right?
Click to expand...


{Sigh}
OK. I think that you should start a thread about race and abortion right way.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vandalshandle said:


> OK. I think that you should start a thread about race and abortion right way.


or ya could just answer the question


----------



## beautress

Vandalshandle said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> SAYS WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says me and my family. And, we are comforted by the fact that no woman has ever been incarcerated and convicted of anything for getting an abortion, and it will not happen in the future, either. But if the SC overturns Row Vs Wade, and if California then outlaws abortion, and if the over the counter drugs available in Europe that induce abortion at home become unavailable, be sure to send me a PM. As for the privacy issue, I really don't give a rat's ass. We are pro-choice, and that is here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be right, but that still doesn't make or prove abortion is a constitutional right...never did never will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine with me, as long as it is available. if all else fails, we simply go back to the 1960's, when there were no abortions, and millions of D & C's.
Click to expand...

Is this available enough for you, Vandalshandle? There are plenty of places one can still murder exterminate one's baby and get free prizes for it:




​I do not believe paying for people's birth control measure called abortion is the responsibility of the public at large. It has opened the door to women who want to follow lust as a lifestyle and still not have to pay for this crime against humanity. Abortion is the mean, thoughtless, painful-to-the-unborn-American-citizen assassination of America's future and posterity. It greatly grieves me to think that people of religion have to pay for the sexual promiscuity of male predators and relieve them of their traditional responsibility to pay for their own children's upbringing, and not their extermination fees which can currently cost from $900 to $3,000 unless one is of color, in which the fee is $0 to the woman of color and $900 to $3,000 to the taxpayer in the United States of America. It is the only fee that supercedes the First Amendment which says there is freedom of Religion. How can that be when a taxpayer's church is against abortion, and the family has to put out to pay for other people to have abortions without the right to know that one of them could be their daughter. That also violates the First Amendment freedom of religion. You can't have freedom of religion against abortion in this nation. People are worried they will lose their First Amendment rights. Well, they can just forget about it. Their Freedom of Religion went away in 1973 with Roe v. Wade and all that has been litigated over abortion since that time that cremates religious rights into a neat little box of ashes, violating religious freedom to raise one's children in the family belief system by letting somebody else choose their version of atheism against the religious family's child. The founders roll in their graves. Oh, and States rights? Not any more! The Federal Goverment pussies in Congress did away with states rights too, using Roe v. Wade and all its litigations against the taxpayer since that time. They never mentioned it as being placed on the responsibility of all other taxpayers, but that's who pays for it. The supporters of abortion have unduly placed payment due certificates on the account of each and every taxpayer and working class citizen in this nation to pay for other people's sex choices. And I'm madder than hell about it and the jackasses who jack off about it here, bragging about it like it was some damn thing to be proud of. It isn't. It is the blatant picking of pockets of strangers to pay for the most criminal use of sex for money.


----------



## beautress

Oh, and if you're worried about your regional area, here's a more refined map of the hoodwinking of American Communities who have to pay for the sexual misconduct of other people through the abortion system of extracting tax money from YOUR pocket.




Source: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usabig11.gif​


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Hubris Of Minority Status When Comparing Global Versus Domestic Population "*

** Pandering Fake Sentiments About Racial Concerns And Abortion **



Frankeneinstein said:


> Yeah OK, and we'll just forget all about that nasty little minority thing right?


Between 0% and 200% of the poverty line have 75% of abortions and approximately 59% of women who have abortion already have children .

Having children drops women out of the employment market and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia ensured that having more babies did not include a reward of stipend to promote generational welfare .

The bifurcated minds of the religious riech feign to promote fiscal accountability while deriding to spay , neuter , or otherwise fund birth control for their hue mammon pets , as if lacking any clear foresight for social welfare costs or consequences towards facilitating third world slums .

Apparently , such puritanical ideologues need sufficient numbers of destitute to prop up themselves as the purveyors for pity .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Money Supply And Fiat Currency Created Out Of Thin Air "*

** Hood Winking **



beautress said:


> Oh, and if you're worried about your regional area, here's a more refined map of the hoodwinking of American Communities who have to pay for the sexual misconduct of other people through the abortion system of extracting tax money from YOUR pocket.


That the terms " sexual misconduct " were applied is hilarious .

Would having kids while otherwise being incapable of sufficiently paying an egalitarian fair share of public services for their rearing them be considered sexual misconduct , as well ?

** Loves Data **

By the way , thanks for the map .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Traffickers Of Sexual Obsession "*



beautress said:


> *I do not believe paying for people's birth control measure called abortion is the responsibility of the public at large. *It has opened the door to women who want to follow lust as a lifestyle and still not have to pay for this crime against humanity. Abortion is the mean, thoughtless, *painful-to-the-unborn-American-citizen* assassination of America's future and posterity. It greatly grieves me to think that people of religion have to pay for the sexual promiscuity of male predators and relieve them of their traditional responsibility to pay for their own children's upbringing, and not their extermination fees which can currently cost from $900 to $3,000 unless one is of color, in which the fee is $0 to the woman of color and $900 to $3,000 to the taxpayer in the United States of America. It is the only fee that supercedes the First Amendment which says there is freedom of Religion. How can that be when a taxpayer's church is against abortion, and the family has to put out to pay for other people to have abortions without the right to know that one of them could be their daughter. That also violates the First Amendment freedom of religion. You can't have freedom of religion against abortion in this nation. People are worried they will lose their First Amendment rights. Well, they can just forget about it. Their Freedom of Religion went away in 1973 with Roe v. Wade and all that has been litigated over abortion since that time that cremates religious rights into a neat little box of ashes, violating religious freedom to raise one's children in the family belief system by letting somebody else choose their version of atheism against the religious family's child. The founders roll in their graves. Oh, and States rights? Not any more! The Federal Goverment pussies in Congress did away with states rights too, using Roe v. Wade and all its litigations against the taxpayer since that time. *They never mentioned it as being placed on the responsibility of all other taxpayers, but that's who pays for it. *The supporters of abortion have unduly placed payment due certificates on the account of each and every taxpayer and working class citizen in this nation to pay for other people's sex choices. And I'm madder than hell about it and the jackasses who jack off about it here, bragging about it like it was some damn thing to be proud of. It isn't. *It is the blatant picking of pockets of strangers to pay for the most criminal use of sex for money. *


** Certainly Sum Due **

There is a difference between direct taxes and indirect taxes - Indirect tax - Wikipedia .

Indirect taxes are collected indirectly through commerce by the government to manage commerce and those funds can be applied indirectly to include for the social well being of workers ; alternatively , direct taxes are collected directly from individuals and are to be applied directly , as near as possible , for the benefit of those from who they are collected .

Are you complaining about direct taxes or indirect taxes being used for abortion , because the only valid contention regards direct taxes that most likely does not occur ? 

** My Money Goes Where Check Box **

Why does the religious riech promote funding for abstinence only programs to adults around the world when the us should be be world leader in prophylactic distribution ? 

** Empathy For Pain Requires Science **

Sentience requires Thalamocortical radiations - Wikipedia that bridge the autonomic nervous system of the thalamus to the higher order thinking of the cortex , and those do not begin to onset any earlier than the 23rd week with sentience not expected any earlier than the 26th to 29th week .

The onset of sentience occurs similarly along a timeline as does viability , so " painful-to-the-unborn " is not a valid ethical premise at any time prior .

Similarly to the left dramatizing mass shootings to remove a second amendment wright , the right raises third trimester abortions to outlaw all abortion .


----------



## Vandalshandle

beautress said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> SAYS WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says me and my family. And, we are comforted by the fact that no woman has ever been incarcerated and convicted of anything for getting an abortion, and it will not happen in the future, either. But if the SC overturns Row Vs Wade, and if California then outlaws abortion, and if the over the counter drugs available in Europe that induce abortion at home become unavailable, be sure to send me a PM. As for the privacy issue, I really don't give a rat's ass. We are pro-choice, and that is here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be right, but that still doesn't make or prove abortion is a constitutional right...never did never will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine with me, as long as it is available. if all else fails, we simply go back to the 1960's, when there were no abortions, and millions of D & C's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this available enough for you, Vandalshandle? There are plenty of places one can still murder exterminate one's baby and get free prizes for it:
> 
> 
> 
> ​I do not believe paying for people's birth control measure called abortion is the responsibility of the public at large. It has opened the door to women who want to follow lust as a lifestyle and still not have to pay for this crime against humanity. Abortion is the mean, thoughtless, painful-to-the-unborn-American-citizen assassination of America's future and posterity. It greatly grieves me to think that people of religion have to pay for the sexual promiscuity of male predators and relieve them of their traditional responsibility to pay for their own children's upbringing, and not their extermination fees which can currently cost from $900 to $3,000 unless one is of color, in which the fee is $0 to the woman of color and $900 to $3,000 to the taxpayer in the United States of America. It is the only fee that supercedes the First Amendment which says there is freedom of Religion. How can that be when a taxpayer's church is against abortion, and the family has to put out to pay for other people to have abortions without the right to know that one of them could be their daughter. That also violates the First Amendment freedom of religion. You can't have freedom of religion against abortion in this nation. People are worried they will lose their First Amendment rights. Well, they can just forget about it. Their Freedom of Religion went away in 1973 with Roe v. Wade and all that has been litigated over abortion since that time that cremates religious rights into a neat little box of ashes, violating religious freedom to raise one's children in the family belief system by letting somebody else choose their version of atheism against the religious family's child. The founders roll in their graves. Oh, and States rights? Not any more! The Federal Goverment pussies in Congress did away with states rights too, using Roe v. Wade and all its litigations against the taxpayer since that time. They never mentioned it as being placed on the responsibility of all other taxpayers, but that's who pays for it. The supporters of abortion have unduly placed payment due certificates on the account of each and every taxpayer and working class citizen in this nation to pay for other people's sex choices. And I'm madder than hell about it and the jackasses who jack off about it here, bragging about it like it was some damn thing to be proud of. It isn't. It is the blatant picking of pockets of strangers to pay for the most criminal use of sex for money.
Click to expand...


I a not aware of any tax money paying for abortions. In fact, as I recall Hobby Lobby won their case to exclude it as a covered benefit under their employee health plan, and Planned parenthood can only use government funding for other women's health issues. That pretty much voids your entire rant on the subject.

This Is How Much Taxpayer Money Goes To Abortions


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering another living human being is not a fundamental right. This thinking puts us on the same plane as Hitler. A fetus is a living being from conception when cell began to divide and grow toward a full grown human being. Everything has a beginning and the fetus is the beginning of a growing human being.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this sophistry, of course, is that in order for it to be valid, it must be applied consistently – where the state would need to do more than just ‘ban’ abortion, it would also need to ‘ban’ all manner of birth control, including condoms, IUDs, and the pill.
Click to expand...


"You can't do it unless you do it according to MY definition of what's required for a position I don't hold!"

Uh huh.  You keep telling yourself that we're obligated to accept your viewpoint on things.


----------



## LilOlLady

I don't understand and have no respect for doctors who perform abortions. I blame them more than the women because the *aim of medicine is*, according to the [Hippocratic] Oath, *to heal and not to kill.* 

The Oath made clear what it means to* 'do no harm.' *The meaning of *'injury or wrongdoing'* was named specifically as abortion, euthanasia, sexual abuse, and breach of confidentiality. In contrast, in postmodern medicine, the interpretation of what constitutes 'harm' lies in the eye of the beholder. The Kevorkian spectacle has illustrated this... The jury accepted Kevorkian’s defense that he was only aiming at the relief of suffering and he was set free. No one pointed out the obvious that the *means used to relieve suffering was to kill the patient. *This case, along with others that followed, contributed to the *deconstruction of Hippocratic medicin*e and the subsequent promotion of postmodern medicine; moving the profession of medicine away from the aim of healing and into the murky waters of relief of suffering through assisted suicide and euthanasia.


----------



## Coyote

LilOlLady said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
Click to expand...

Her body is always hers.  No one else has a right to it.  Including the government.


----------



## Coyote

Frankeneinstein said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the right to privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Except where the second amendment is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> A woman’s reason or reasons for ending her pregnancy are hers alone, having no bearing whatsoever on what another woman might decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says who?
Click to expand...

The woman.  The one who’s body you want Big Government to control.


----------



## Coyote

beautress said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. A woman’s body and a man’s body are COMPLETELY in their own decision-making domains.
> If a man transfers his semen to a woman, whether voluntary or rape, that sperm becomes the sole property of her body & mind (as well as husband’s in secondary order).
> That developing mindless “human being” inside the woman’s body is completely dependent on her, both physically and her mind.
> 
> Do what you want with YOUR body. Don’t impose YOUR will on others. That’s anti-American, isn’t it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you do with YOUR body stops at going after another human being's DNA at whatever stage it is in. Roe v. Wade made an egregious mistake, and as a consequence, this nation has killed as many human beings as Mao did hiding behind the flak of WWII to get rid of Chinese sects he personally hated for not believing he was a living diety. Here, women are being spoon-fed shit that they are the diety of the child. That is a bald faced lie and it is far from the truth as murder being the answer to minor disagreements among men.
> 
> We need to reconsider Roe v. Wade. God demands it of us. If we do not, he will send great enemies against us who will prevail to kill twice as many of us as Roe v. Wade did. You do not want to see that side of the Almighty, but you will if you do not stop the madness of killing other people just because they can't form a fist and knock your vicious teeth out.
Click to expand...

No human being has the right to take control of another’s body or force a person to host it unwillingly.

If you needed a kidney transplant to save your life, can you force your parent to donate a kidney to save your life?


----------



## denmark

Cecilie1200 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Noah Webster, trying to base your point on a modernized and functionally-illiterate understanding of the English language is not going to take you very far, and basing it on "This is SCIENCE, because it's how it appears to me!" won't take you anywhere at all.
> 
> First, "men" in archaic parlance often translated into "humans" or "people", as it did in that phrase.  That hyper-sensitive, panty-chapped neo-savages like you have decided to make a big fucking hairy deal out of singling out sexes means exactly fuck and all to words written a long time ago.
> 
> Second, a fetus is not part of a woman's body.  Ever.  And there is nothing about birth which magically creates a person out of something else.  I've given birth to three children myself, and been present at the births of many others.  I promise you that, no matter what your Mommy told you, there were no fairy godmothers, magic wands, or sparkling puffs of glitter present.
Click to expand...

I agree. At birth, there are no sparkling puffs of glitter, either physical or imagined (soul), and the baby’s mind at birth is not conscious of any reality, except for physical discomfort and vocal cries & moro reflex, etc.
Only if necessary, and only the pregnant woman should decide the fate of what’s inside HER body, terminating the fetus is not as big a deal for YOU, or it should not be (in case your emotions are uncontrollable).


----------



## beautress

Coyote: "No human being has the right to take control of another’s body or force a person to host it unwillingly."

So a human being mother does not have the right to take control of her unborn baby's body in order to kill it, which it is unwilling to give up as shown by videos showing how violently the unborn human being moves in order to excape the certain extinction by the abortionist's killing equipment. Thank you for making my case.


----------



## denmark

Cecilie1200 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second* and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and *the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%).* This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; *Iraq,* Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while *the other new entrants rank lower."
> *
> "Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and *the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."
> *
> Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common:  they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.
> 
> "The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. *Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap*, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."
> 
> The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.
Click to expand...

I applaud you for actually reading some of the report, including what suits you.
However, I stand by what I focused on - *Political Empowerment*.
The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. That’s very disappointing for a country that emphasizes FREEDOM for all.

You need to control your emotions. Calling people names and ASSuming you know them is the height of arrogance, if not also stupidity.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Noah Webster, trying to base your point on a modernized and functionally-illiterate understanding of the English language is not going to take you very far, and basing it on "This is SCIENCE, because it's how it appears to me!" won't take you anywhere at all.
> 
> First, "men" in archaic parlance often translated into "humans" or "people", as it did in that phrase.  That hyper-sensitive, panty-chapped neo-savages like you have decided to make a big fucking hairy deal out of singling out sexes means exactly fuck and all to words written a long time ago.
> 
> Second, a fetus is not part of a woman's body.  Ever.  And there is nothing about birth which magically creates a person out of something else.  I've given birth to three children myself, and been present at the births of many others.  I promise you that, no matter what your Mommy told you, there were no fairy godmothers, magic wands, or sparkling puffs of glitter present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. At birth, there are no sparkling puffs of glitter, either physical or imagined (soul), and the baby’s mind at birth is not conscious of any reality, except for physical discomfort and vocal cries & moro reflex, etc.
> Only if necessary, and only the pregnant woman should decide the fate of what’s inside HER body, terminating the fetus is not as big a deal for YOU, or it should not be (in case your emotions are uncontrollable).
Click to expand...


YOU are seriously trying to claim that your outdated, unscientific twaddle is the "rational" position, and mine, with every ounce of modern medicine and biology supporting it, is "emotional"?  For someone who alleges that his only concern is "women's rights", you certainly are a condescending little chauvinist drooler when a woman dares to challenge your incoherent mansplaining of what she wants and needs.

I understand.  Being a born with a penis is probably the only accomplishment in your sad little excuse for a life, and being confronted with a woman who's ahead of you on both education and, apparently, evolution is very threatening to "men" like you.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Monk-Eye said:


> Between 0% and 200% of the poverty line have 75% of abortions and approximately 59% of women who have abortion already have children .
> 
> Having children drops women out of the employment market and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia ensured that having more babies did not include a reward of stipend to promote generational welfare .
> 
> The bifurcated minds of the religious riech feign to promote fiscal accountability while deriding to spay , neuter , or otherwise fund birth control for their hue mammon pets , as if lacking any clear foresight for social welfare costs or consequences towards facilitating third world slums .
> 
> Apparently , such puritanical ideologues need sufficient numbers of destitute to prop up themselves as the purveyors for pity .


I appreciate you backing up the claim that abortion is to reduce the minority population but the name calling is actually proof you are pretending to make an academic argument.


----------



## Third Party

denmark said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
> USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
> 
> 
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second* and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and *the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%).* This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; *Iraq,* Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while *the other new entrants rank lower."
> *
> "Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and *the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."
> *
> Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common:  they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.
> 
> "The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. *Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap*, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."
> 
> The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I applaud you for actually reading some of the report, including what suits you.
> However, I stand by what I focused on - *Political Empowerment*.
> The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. That’s very disappointing for a country that emphasizes FREEDOM for all.
> 
> You need to control your emotions. Calling people names and ASSuming you know them is the height of arrogance, if not also stupidity.
Click to expand...

Your view-most don't agree.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Coyote said:


> The woman. The one who’s body you want Big Government to control.


So controlling and reducing the minority population is what? just an unfortunate?or fortunate? side effect for you? I don't want the government involved at all, nor business, nor men or their money, in fact abortion should remain legal and completely the woman's responsibility, I am just not comfortable with its real/ultimate objective they way you are.


----------



## SweetSue92

Coyote said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her body is always hers.  No one else has a right to it.  Including the government.
Click to expand...


But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.


----------



## denmark

Cecilie1200 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Noah Webster, trying to base your point on a modernized and functionally-illiterate understanding of the English language is not going to take you very far, and basing it on "This is SCIENCE, because it's how it appears to me!" won't take you anywhere at all.
> 
> First, "men" in archaic parlance often translated into "humans" or "people", as it did in that phrase.  That hyper-sensitive, panty-chapped neo-savages like you have decided to make a big fucking hairy deal out of singling out sexes means exactly fuck and all to words written a long time ago.
> 
> Second, a fetus is not part of a woman's body.  Ever.  And there is nothing about birth which magically creates a person out of something else.  I've given birth to three children myself, and been present at the births of many others.  I promise you that, no matter what your Mommy told you, there were no fairy godmothers, magic wands, or sparkling puffs of glitter present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. At birth, there are no sparkling puffs of glitter, either physical or imagined (soul), and the baby’s mind at birth is not conscious of any reality, except for physical discomfort and vocal cries & moro reflex, etc.
> Only if necessary, and only the pregnant woman should decide the fate of what’s inside HER body, terminating the fetus is not as big a deal for YOU, or it should not be (in case your emotions are uncontrollable).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are seriously trying to claim that your outdated, unscientific twaddle is the "rational" position, and mine, with every ounce of modern medicine and biology supporting it, is "emotional"?  For someone who alleges that his only concern is "women's rights", you certainly are a condescending little chauvinist drooler when a woman dares to challenge your incoherent mansplaining of what she wants and needs.
> 
> I understand.  Being a born with a penis is probably the only accomplishment in your sad little excuse for a life, and being confronted with a woman who's ahead of you on both education and, apparently, evolution is very threatening to "men" like you.
Click to expand...

Now that you got your emotional frustrations out, again, how about detailing any specific scientific argument you have that contradicts what I said.
Don’t worry; I am not threatened by you whatsoever.


----------



## denmark

Third Party said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts or link please.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second* and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and *the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%).* This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; *Iraq,* Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while *the other new entrants rank lower."
> *
> "Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and *the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."
> *
> Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common:  they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.
> 
> "The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. *Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap*, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."
> 
> The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I applaud you for actually reading some of the report, including what suits you.
> However, I stand by what I focused on - *Political Empowerment*.
> The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. That’s very disappointing for a country that emphasizes FREEDOM for all.
> 
> You need to control your emotions. Calling people names and ASSuming you know them is the height of arrogance, if not also stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your view-most don't agree.
Click to expand...

“Most don’t agree”?
What are you talking about? Can you be specific?


----------



## denmark

SweetSue92 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her body is always hers.  No one else has a right to it.  Including the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
Click to expand...

What science are you referring to?
The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny (fetus is a lesser concern).
Same for non-human animals too.


----------



## SweetSue92

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her body is always hers.  No one else has a right to it.  Including the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
Click to expand...


It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.

This is beyond dispute.


----------



## denmark

SweetSue92 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her body is always hers.  No one else has a right to it.  Including the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
Click to expand...

It’s HER fetus/embryo.
This is beyond dispute.


----------



## SweetSue92

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> 
> 
> Her body is always hers.  No one else has a right to it.  Including the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
Click to expand...


I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver


----------



## denmark

SweetSue92 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her body is always hers.  No one else has a right to it.  Including the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
Click to expand...

That’s YOUR opinion.
I say she does own her own fetus, embryo, and everything inside her body.


----------



## SweetSue92

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s YOUR opinion.
> I say she does own her own fetus, embryo, and everything inside her body.
Click to expand...


In America it's not a matter of OPINION. It's in the Constitution and in fact, is in many of our state laws. If someone murders a pregnant woman, that person is charged with the murder of the fetus as well. The same is not true of being charged for "murdering" the woman's heart, lungs or spleen.


----------



## denmark

SweetSue92 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s YOUR opinion.
> I say she does own her own fetus, embryo, and everything inside her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In America it's not a matter of OPINION. It's in the Constitution and in fact, is in many of our state laws. If someone murders a pregnant woman, that person is charged with the murder of the fetus as well. The same is not true of being charged for "murdering" the woman's heart, lungs or spleen.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was expressing my opinion, like you were.
What US Constitution text supports your opinion?


----------



## SweetSue92

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s YOUR opinion.
> I say she does own her own fetus, embryo, and everything inside her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In America it's not a matter of OPINION. It's in the Constitution and in fact, is in many of our state laws. If someone murders a pregnant woman, that person is charged with the murder of the fetus as well. The same is not true of being charged for "murdering" the woman's heart, lungs or spleen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I was expressing my opinion, like you were.
> What US Constitution text supports your opinion?
Click to expand...


Right that's what we do here. Express opinions. And since you're not a US citizen, obviously, I'm gone arguing with you about this.

BTW, why are foreigners so obsessed with America? Does NOTHING happen in your nation?


----------



## denmark

SweetSue92 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s YOUR opinion.
> I say she does own her own fetus, embryo, and everything inside her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In America it's not a matter of OPINION. It's in the Constitution and in fact, is in many of our state laws. If someone murders a pregnant woman, that person is charged with the murder of the fetus as well. The same is not true of being charged for "murdering" the woman's heart, lungs or spleen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I was expressing my opinion, like you were.
> What US Constitution text supports your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right that's what we do here. Express opinions. And since you're not a US citizen, obviously, I'm gone arguing with you about this.
> 
> BTW, why are foreigners so obsessed with America? Does NOTHING happen in your nation?
Click to expand...

You could not answer my US Constitution question?
OK then, but why does nationality make a difference in your thread topic?
Do you also disapprove of Russians meddling in US elections?


----------



## Third Party

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 269109
> 
> 
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second* and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and *the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%).* This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; *Iraq,* Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while *the other new entrants rank lower."
> *
> "Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and *the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."
> *
> Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common:  they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.
> 
> "The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. *Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap*, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."
> 
> The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I applaud you for actually reading some of the report, including what suits you.
> However, I stand by what I focused on - *Political Empowerment*.
> The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. That’s very disappointing for a country that emphasizes FREEDOM for all.
> 
> You need to control your emotions. Calling people names and ASSuming you know them is the height of arrogance, if not also stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your view-most don't agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Most don’t agree”?
> What are you talking about? Can you be specific?
Click to expand...

People on USMB


----------



## denmark

Third Party said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second* and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and *the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%).* This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; *Iraq,* Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while *the other new entrants rank lower."
> *
> "Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and *the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."
> *
> Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common:  they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.
> 
> "The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. *Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap*, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."
> 
> The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I applaud you for actually reading some of the report, including what suits you.
> However, I stand by what I focused on - *Political Empowerment*.
> The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. That’s very disappointing for a country that emphasizes FREEDOM for all.
> 
> You need to control your emotions. Calling people names and ASSuming you know them is the height of arrogance, if not also stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your view-most don't agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Most don’t agree”?
> What are you talking about? Can you be specific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People on USMB
Click to expand...

Even if you had valid statistics to back up your statement, so what? Majority opinion does not confirm the righteousness of statements. Logic does.


----------



## SweetSue92

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> 
> 
> That’s YOUR opinion.
> I say she does own her own fetus, embryo, and everything inside her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In America it's not a matter of OPINION. It's in the Constitution and in fact, is in many of our state laws. If someone murders a pregnant woman, that person is charged with the murder of the fetus as well. The same is not true of being charged for "murdering" the woman's heart, lungs or spleen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I was expressing my opinion, like you were.
> What US Constitution text supports your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right that's what we do here. Express opinions. And since you're not a US citizen, obviously, I'm gone arguing with you about this.
> 
> BTW, why are foreigners so obsessed with America? Does NOTHING happen in your nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could not answer my US Constitution question?
> OK then, but why does nationality make a difference in your thread topic?
> Do you also disapprove of Russians meddling in US elections?
Click to expand...


Because these are AMERICAN issues and have nothing to do with you

Why does each person in the world think they are a de facto American citizen?

You're not


----------



## Third Party

denmark said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second* and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and *the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%).* This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; *Iraq,* Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while *the other new entrants rank lower."
> *
> "Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and *the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."
> *
> Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common:  they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.
> 
> "The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. *Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap*, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."
> 
> The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you for actually reading some of the report, including what suits you.
> However, I stand by what I focused on - *Political Empowerment*.
> The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. That’s very disappointing for a country that emphasizes FREEDOM for all.
> 
> You need to control your emotions. Calling people names and ASSuming you know them is the height of arrogance, if not also stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your view-most don't agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Most don’t agree”?
> What are you talking about? Can you be specific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People on USMB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if you had valid statistics to back up your statement, so what? Majority opinion does not confirm the righteousness of statements. Logic does.
Click to expand...

Your logic should dictate what others think?


----------



## dblack

SweetSue92 said:


> Why does each person in the world think they are a de facto American citizen?



Because the US government thinks it's the de facto world leader.


----------



## Third Party

dblack said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does each person in the world think they are a de facto American citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US government thinks it's the de facto world leader.
Click to expand...

Where did anybody ever get the idea that the US has to or should be world leader? The founding fathers warned against entangling alliances as part of an isolationist approach.


----------



## beautress

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> 
> 
> Her body is always hers.  No one else has a right to it.  Including the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
Click to expand...

That's only traditionally.
Also traditionally, it is her duty not to do anything that would cause pregnancy or damage to a pregnancy including STDs. In earlier times the only way to avoid getting an STD, women were convented into instructions about familiness, were trained and watched over by older and wiser women and were disallowed from being alone with a man for over a couple of minutes. Her role was learning to make life good for her future family, so she was taught
(1) loyalty, (2) love and caring, (3) nutrition and food storage (4) obedience to her chosen spouse (5) humility and religion, (6) survival in the face of pestilence, (7) health remedies (8) courage (9) persuasion (10) safety (11) cleanliness (12) common sense, (13) the use of protection devices when alone, (14) community relationships (15) resourcefulness, (16) gardening crops, spices, and flowers, etc.

Today, all a woman has is confusion in a disgraced world. Breaking her bond with faith and family is the destruction of community, state, country, and humanity. It invites invasion and genocide. We either clean up our bad act or face judgment and execution from enemies. It's just that simple.


----------



## Coyote

I sm soglad wo.en in this country today have freedom of choice and equality. Not obediance.


----------



## Coyote

Frankeneinstein said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. The one who’s body you want Big Government to control.
> 
> 
> 
> So controlling and reducing the minority population is what? just an unfortunate?or fortunate? side effect for you? I don't want the government involved at all, nor business, nor men or their money, in fact abortion should remain legal and completely the woman's responsibility, I am just not comfortable with its real/ultimate objective they way you are.
Click to expand...

The so called "real objective" is nothing more than a debunked conspiracy theory utilized to bolster faux pro life claim that abortion rights are racist.


----------



## mudwhistle

SweetSue92 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, George Carlin, comedian, surely knows all about it, doesn't he?
Click to expand...

Democrats get most of their news from comedians.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Coyote said:


> The so called "real objective" is nothing more than a debunked conspiracy theory utilized to bolster faux pro life claim that abortion rights are racist.


that entire post is nothing more than a dodge...
... how would one better determine a racists motivations than by the results? by asking them? or by claiming that keeping the minority population down is not the real objective, but just a perk?
...your claim is nothing more than the typical liberal racist squirm the left is historically known for from slavery right on through the standing in doorways of schools to the use of police dogs in the fight for civil rights...check the records
...and abortion has cut the minority population in nearly half...that's near genocidal racism, and hillary is an abortion rights advocate who claimed that a known kkk member, robert byrd, was her mentor...
...I would seriously consider finding a new source of fact finding [if in fact there was any at all] than the one you tried to pass off here


----------



## Third Party

Coyote said:


> I sm soglad wo.en in this country today have freedom of choice and equality. Not obediance.


Tell the 4 sisters of the victimhood squad.


----------



## LilOlLady

Coyote said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.
> 
> What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.
> 
> The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a general non-specific rant.
> Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. A woman’s body and a man’s body are COMPLETELY in their own decision-making domains.
> If a man transfers his semen to a woman, whether voluntary or rape, that sperm becomes the sole property of her body & mind (as well as husband’s in secondary order).
> That developing mindless “human being” inside the woman’s body is completely dependent on her, both physically and her mind.
> 
> Do what you want with YOUR body. Don’t impose YOUR will on others. That’s anti-American, isn’t it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you do with YOUR body stops at going after another human being's DNA at whatever stage it is in. Roe v. Wade made an egregious mistake, and as a consequence, this nation has killed as many human beings as Mao did hiding behind the flak of WWII to get rid of Chinese sects he personally hated for not believing he was a living diety. Here, women are being spoon-fed shit that they are the diety of the child. That is a bald faced lie and it is far from the truth as murder being the answer to minor disagreements among men.
> 
> We need to reconsider Roe v. Wade. God demands it of us. If we do not, he will send great enemies against us who will prevail to kill twice as many of us as Roe v. Wade did. You do not want to see that side of the Almighty, but you will if you do not stop the madness of killing other people just because they can't form a fist and knock your vicious teeth out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No human being has the right to take control of another’s body or force a person to host it unwillingly.
> 
> If you needed a kidney transplant to save your life, can you force your parent to donate a kidney to save your life?
Click to expand...

If you do not know the difference between a baby and a kidney, you are most pathetic. Woman was created to "multiply and fill the earth" I am thankful that GOD did not create me to lay and egg to produce a baby. There is something special about having a baby growing inside you, etc. But you probably would not understand and rather lay an egg. I do not understand how one could abort one child and then give birth to one. The unborn baby is a part of you. I would cut my arms and legs off first before I cut off the life of my unborn child.


----------



## LilOlLady

The government does have control of a woman's body whether they understand that or not. Government is inconsistent one day to another whether a woman has a choice or a woman do not have a choice. And you pathetic women followers blindly to abort or not to abort. Its a baby, it's not a baby. In the United States, in 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute *criminalizing abortion*. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900. Wait and Roe vs Wade will be reversed. But again, *someone is making money of the killing of unborn children*.


----------



## LilOlLady

denmark said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s YOUR opinion.
> I say she does own her own fetus, embryo, and everything inside her body.
Click to expand...

*Limited ownership* because the government does have a say in how you care for that child after it is born. The bible say..." you can beat your child with a rod"  but the government says you cannot because it is child abuse and you go straight to jail. You get to birth a baby addicted to drugs and you go to jail and that baby is taken from you by the government. Neglect that child and you go to jail.


----------



## LilOlLady

I do not understand how one can believe in GOD the creator of life and at the same time believe it is ok to kill an unborn baby. We have become a sick and pathetic society when killing another human being is made legal and believed to be right. 
2 Timothy 3;2..."People will be *lovers of themselves*, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, *unholy."* A totally selfish woman is one who cares more about herself than her child and she does not deserve to have a child and call herself a mother. "Keep religion our to this"? Without GOD in my life, I would have no life.


----------



## Third Party

LilOlLady said:


> I do not understand how one can believe in GOD the creator of life and at the same time believe it is ok to kill an unborn baby. We have become a sick and pathetic society when killing another human being is made legal and believed to be right.
> 2 Timothy 3;2..."People will be *lovers of themselves*, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, *unholy."* A totally selfish woman is one who cares more about herself than her child and she does not deserve to have a child and call herself a mother. "Keep religion our to this"? Without GOD in my life, I would have no life.


There are religions and philosophies that cover this. Keep looking.


----------



## LilOlLady

Third Party said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand how one can believe in GOD the creator of life and at the same time believe it is ok to kill an unborn baby. We have become a sick and pathetic society when killing another human being is made legal and believed to be right.
> 2 Timothy 3;2..."People will be *lovers of themselves*, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, *unholy."* A totally selfish woman is one who cares more about herself than her child and she does not deserve to have a child and call herself a mother. "Keep religion our to this"? Without GOD in my life, I would have no life.
> 
> 
> 
> There are religions and philosophies that cover this. Keep looking.
Click to expand...

Col 2;8...
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and *empty deceit*, according to *human tradition*, according to the *elemental spirits of the world*, and not according to Christ.


----------



## LilOlLady

*Trump abortion restrictions effective immediately*
Abortion is a legal medical procedure, but federal laws prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the woman.
*Trump abortion restrictions effective immediately*


----------



## beagle9

SweetSue92 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her body is always hers.  No one else has a right to it.  Including the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the baby is part of the dad as well. If he wasn't so busy running, he might stop and have some say in what happens to the baby him and his mate had created together. Really a sad situation when you have a wild society that takes responsibility in life so wrecklacely anymore.

Lust is a sin, and the willful use of it draws exactly the consequences in which result in these problems running so rampant in our society to date. The people must get some kind of control in their lives again or else these things are going to continue to haunt and destroy people's lives onward.


----------



## LilOlLady

beagle9 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only that, but the baby is part of the dad as well. If he wasn't so busy running, he might stop and have some say in what happens to the baby him and his mate had created together. Really a sad situation when you have a wild society that takes responsibility in life so wrecklacely anymore.
> 
> Lust is a sin, and the willful use of it draws exactly the consequences in which result in these problems running so rampant in our society to date. The people must get some kind of control in their lives again or else these things are going to continue to haunt and destroy people's lives onward.
Click to expand...

Majority of fathers step up, but the mothers are the ones who make selfish decisions to abort. More responsible men than women. Her responsible to protect herself by demanding the man take responsibility also.


----------



## LilOlLady

beagle9 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said in the OP, her baby's body is NOT hers, and this is science. It cannot be disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only that, but the baby is part of the dad as well. If he wasn't so busy running, he might stop and have some say in what happens to the baby him and his mate had created together. Really a sad situation when you have a wild society that takes responsibility in life so wrecklacely anymore.
> 
> Lust is a sin, and the willful use of it draws exactly the consequences in which result in these problems running so rampant in our society to date. The people must get some kind of control in their lives again or else these things are going to continue to haunt and destroy people's lives onward.
Click to expand...

Sound like a personal problem to me.


----------



## SweetSue92

Coyote said:


> I sm soglad wo.en in this country today have freedom of choice and equality. Not obediance.



Freedom to kill their own children.

YAY!


----------



## beagle9

LilOlLady said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only that, but the baby is part of the dad as well. If he wasn't so busy running, he might stop and have some say in what happens to the baby him and his mate had created together. Really a sad situation when you have a wild society that takes responsibility in life so wrecklacely anymore.
> 
> Lust is a sin, and the willful use of it draws exactly the consequences in which result in these problems running so rampant in our society to date. The people must get some kind of control in their lives again or else these things are going to continue to haunt and destroy people's lives onward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sound like a personal problem to me.
Click to expand...

Huh ??


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are *created *equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights,* that among these are* Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
> *A life is created at conception.*
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, Noah Webster, trying to base your point on a modernized and functionally-illiterate understanding of the English language is not going to take you very far, and basing it on "This is SCIENCE, because it's how it appears to me!" won't take you anywhere at all.
> 
> First, "men" in archaic parlance often translated into "humans" or "people", as it did in that phrase.  That hyper-sensitive, panty-chapped neo-savages like you have decided to make a big fucking hairy deal out of singling out sexes means exactly fuck and all to words written a long time ago.
> 
> Second, a fetus is not part of a woman's body.  Ever.  And there is nothing about birth which magically creates a person out of something else.  I've given birth to three children myself, and been present at the births of many others.  I promise you that, no matter what your Mommy told you, there were no fairy godmothers, magic wands, or sparkling puffs of glitter present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. At birth, there are no sparkling puffs of glitter, either physical or imagined (soul), and the baby’s mind at birth is not conscious of any reality, except for physical discomfort and vocal cries & moro reflex, etc.
> Only if necessary, and only the pregnant woman should decide the fate of what’s inside HER body, terminating the fetus is not as big a deal for YOU, or it should not be (in case your emotions are uncontrollable).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are seriously trying to claim that your outdated, unscientific twaddle is the "rational" position, and mine, with every ounce of modern medicine and biology supporting it, is "emotional"?  For someone who alleges that his only concern is "women's rights", you certainly are a condescending little chauvinist drooler when a woman dares to challenge your incoherent mansplaining of what she wants and needs.
> 
> I understand.  Being a born with a penis is probably the only accomplishment in your sad little excuse for a life, and being confronted with a woman who's ahead of you on both education and, apparently, evolution is very threatening to "men" like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that you got your emotional frustrations out, again, how about detailing any specific scientific argument you have that contradicts what I said.
> Don’t worry; I am not threatened by you whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Now that you stuck your fingers in your ears to go "Lalala, I can't hear anything, so it's all just emotion!" maybe you could try cleaning those ears out a little so you can possibly catch some facts as they whiz past you . . . like the forty-gazillion times the facts that contradict your primitive BS have been presented.  Demonstrate to me that you DESERVE yet another tedious repeat of those facts, and that it won't be casting pearls before deliberately ignorant swine.

I don't worry at all about misogynist hicks lilke you being threatened by me.  I find your belief that having exterior plumbing makes up for being a fool too amusing.


----------



## denmark

LilOlLady said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> What science are you referring to?
> The baby’s body (aka fetus or embryo) INSIDE the pregnant woman’s body is her “matter”. Although the fetus has its own DNA profile, its biological growth is COMPLETELY dependent on the mother, who decides her own destiny.
> Same for non-human animals too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an entirely unique situation. It is not like HER kidney, HER ovaries, HER lungs. It is in her body but NOT her body. It is a unique life.
> 
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s HER fetus/embryo.
> This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you're not American and so have not internalized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> She does not own that life. It is not hers. It is in her body, yes. But again it is not like HER kidneys, HER lungs, HER liver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s YOUR opinion.
> I say she does own her own fetus, embryo, and everything inside her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Limited ownership* because the government does have a say in how you care for that child after it is born. The bible say..." you can beat your child with a rod"  but the government says you cannot because it is child abuse and you go straight to jail. You get to birth a baby addicted to drugs and you go to jail and that baby is taken from you by the government. Neglect that child and you go to jail.
Click to expand...

Yes, the government has a say in the baby’s welfare AFTER it is born, and that is a reasonable delimiter. In some cases after birth, the parents may pull the plug from the unfortunate baby if it was born brain dead.

It appears to me that USA conservatives “pull the plug” on assisting many impoverished children, although they seem to care about them before they are born.


----------



## denmark

Cecilie1200 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “all Men are *created *equal” ...
> What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.
> 
> A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
> *A person is created at birth.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, Noah Webster, trying to base your point on a modernized and functionally-illiterate understanding of the English language is not going to take you very far, and basing it on "This is SCIENCE, because it's how it appears to me!" won't take you anywhere at all.
> 
> First, "men" in archaic parlance often translated into "humans" or "people", as it did in that phrase.  That hyper-sensitive, panty-chapped neo-savages like you have decided to make a big fucking hairy deal out of singling out sexes means exactly fuck and all to words written a long time ago.
> 
> Second, a fetus is not part of a woman's body.  Ever.  And there is nothing about birth which magically creates a person out of something else.  I've given birth to three children myself, and been present at the births of many others.  I promise you that, no matter what your Mommy told you, there were no fairy godmothers, magic wands, or sparkling puffs of glitter present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. At birth, there are no sparkling puffs of glitter, either physical or imagined (soul), and the baby’s mind at birth is not conscious of any reality, except for physical discomfort and vocal cries & moro reflex, etc.
> Only if necessary, and only the pregnant woman should decide the fate of what’s inside HER body, terminating the fetus is not as big a deal for YOU, or it should not be (in case your emotions are uncontrollable).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are seriously trying to claim that your outdated, unscientific twaddle is the "rational" position, and mine, with every ounce of modern medicine and biology supporting it, is "emotional"?  For someone who alleges that his only concern is "women's rights", you certainly are a condescending little chauvinist drooler when a woman dares to challenge your incoherent mansplaining of what she wants and needs.
> 
> I understand.  Being a born with a penis is probably the only accomplishment in your sad little excuse for a life, and being confronted with a woman who's ahead of you on both education and, apparently, evolution is very threatening to "men" like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that you got your emotional frustrations out, again, how about detailing any specific scientific argument you have that contradicts what I said.
> Don’t worry; I am not threatened by you whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that you stuck your fingers in your ears to go "Lalala, I can't hear anything, so it's all just emotion!" maybe you could try cleaning those ears out a little so you can possibly catch some facts as they whiz past you . . . like the forty-gazillion times the facts that contradict your primitive BS have been presented.  Demonstrate to me that you DESERVE yet another tedious repeat of those facts, and that it won't be casting pearls before deliberately ignorant swine.
> 
> I don't worry at all about misogynist hicks lilke you being threatened by me.  I find your belief that having exterior plumbing makes up for being a fool too amusing.
Click to expand...

Nothing specific, either scientific or philosophical?
I conclude that you have given up rational discourse.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Four Aces And A Wild Joker "*



Frankeneinstein said:


> I appreciate you backing up the claim that abortion is to reduce the minority population but the name calling is actually proof you are pretending to make an academic argument.


*
* Individuals Determine Self Ownership **

The academic argument was presented in the majority opinion by Blackmun in Roe V. Wade, with the statement, _"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."_

The deduction is direct from us 14th amendment that one must be born to become a citizen and one must be born for equal protection , else a fetus is without constitutional protections and consequently a fetus is the private property of the mother .

As a chance for eternal life , an after life , being born again , reincarnation , etc . are all metaphors for literally passing on ones genetic identity and self through ones offspring ; hence , the meaning of " My body .  My choice "  is both figurative and literal .

Before you go rambling on about fetal protection laws , any offense is against the mother , and that is how the laws are understood and how they should be written , that can include elevated penalties just other special circumstance laws are written , though fetal protection laws are devised with language to placate fools .


** Respectably Dealing With Ones Own Adversity **

A claim that abortion is used to reduce the minority population is hubris on par with using the terms " minority population " and failing to consider domestic versus global populations .


----------



## LilOlLady

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Four Aces And A Wild Joker "*
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate you backing up the claim that abortion is to reduce the minority population but the name calling is actually proof you are pretending to make an academic argument.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> * Individuals Determine Self Ownership **
> 
> The academic argument was presented in the majority opinion by Blackmun in Roe V. Wade, with the statement, _"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."_
> 
> The deduction is direct from us 14th amendment that one must be born to become a citizen and one must be born for equal protection , else a fetus is without constitutional protections and consequently a fetus is the private property of the mother .
> 
> As a chance for eternal life , an after life , being born again , reincarnation , etc . are all metaphors for literally passing on ones genetic identity and self through ones offspring ; hence , the meaning of " My body .  My choice "  is both figurative and literal .
> 
> Before you go rambling on about fetal protection laws , any offense is against the mother , and that is how the laws are understood and how they should be written , that can include elevated penalties just other special circumstance laws are written , though fetal protection laws are devised with language to placate fools .
> 
> 
> ** Respectably Dealing With Ones Own Adversity **
> 
> A claim that abortion is used to reduce the minority population is hubris on par with using the terms " minority population " and failing to consider domestic versus global populations .
Click to expand...

In 2014, *39 percent of abortion patients were white*, 28 percent were black and 25 percent were ... "Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion",


----------



## Frankeneinstein

you really went off the tracks here but ok



Monk-Eye said:


> ** Individuals Determine Self Ownership **
> 
> The academic argument was presented in the majority opinion by Blackmun in Roe V. Wade, with the statement, _"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."_



_the "academic" argument in question isn't the courts but the one name calling rant you were engaging in, academics never stoop to name calling which is why I suppose you quoted someone else_




> The deduction is direct from us 14th amendment that one must be born to become a citizen and one must be born for equal protection , else a fetus is without constitutional protections and consequently a fetus is the private property of the mother .


the "deduction"?  that makes my point, why a deduction?  would it be fair to deduce that makes the baby/fetus inside the womb a non citizen? [of course it would be] and subject to all the rights and laws of other non citizens [of course it would]...and all children are the property of the mother
...so I'll repeat, nowhere in the constitution does it make the case for abortion, certainly not to the degree it makes directly [without the need for deduduction] concerning congress and the right to beat arms [ie gun control]...which was the point of my earlier post...certainly not what current case law translate...this is why semantic legal arguments [deductions if you like] get overturned, and why one courts incredibly imaginative deduction is another courts WTF!





> As a chance for eternal life , an after life , being born again , reincarnation , etc . are all metaphors for literally passing on ones genetic identity and self through ones offspring ; hence , the meaning of " My body . My choice " is both figurative and literal .


It's nothing more than a chant, an incantation of "woe is me"...ohm ohm ohm ohm



> Before you go rambling on about fetal protection laws , any offense is against the mother , and that is how the laws are understood and how they should be written , that can include elevated penalties just other special circumstance laws are written , though fetal protection laws are devised with language to placate fools .



I have no knowledge of fetal laws at all, I do however recognize the "SO HAH" cry of "any offense is against the mother" argument designed to pretend one is now officially in the "victim status" category...
...and the "fools" thing...just can't climb that academic ladder high enough can ya?


*



			* Respectably Dealing With Ones Own Adversity *
		
Click to expand...

*


> A claim that abortion is used to reduce the minority population is hubris on par with using the terms " minority population " and failing to consider domestic versus global populations .


Should those considerations extend to the border?
Not sure that you actually understand that by claiming that there are what you consider to be valid reasons for controlling the minority population is in fact an admission that abortion is a way toward that goal...you have, to this point made no direct claim that abortion does not bring the minority population down, only claims that anyone who dare speak out about it is guilty of chutzpa [sp]...
...Lets keep abortion legal, and you stop pretending the constitution addresses the issue in its citizen vs non citizen position...
...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that covers abortion, nothing, cept maybe that no state may deny anyone the right to life...but that is not really a deduction is it? so you may need to use your deductive powers to bring about a different meaning.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

LilOlLady said:


> Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion",


For that reason alone most men [including me] want to keep it legal...but that does not make it constitutional.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Foundations Of State Limits "*

** Too Simple For Red Herring **



Frankeneinstein said:


> you really went off the tracks here but ok
> ...
> the "deduction"?  that makes my point, why a deduction? * would it be fair to deduce that makes the baby/fetus inside the womb a non citizen? [of course it would be] and subject to all the rights and laws of other non citizens [of course it would]...and all children are the property of the mother*
> ...so I'll repeat, nowhere in the constitution does it make the case for abortion, certainly not to the degree it makes directly [without the need for deduduction] concerning congress and the right to beat arms [ie gun control]...which was the point of my earlier post...certainly not what current case law translate...this is why semantic legal arguments [deductions if you like] get overturned, and why one courts incredibly imaginative deduction is another courts WTF!


Any must be born for equal protection with a citizen , else as birth is a requirement for citizenship , any other not having been born would be receiving more wrights than those granted to a citizen .

It is a straight forward deduction ; and , whether a fetus is referred to as a non citizen , or not , is irrelevant to a completion criteria to be a member of and therefore of concern by a state .


** Digression Of Fetal Protection Laws **



Frankeneinstein said:


> I have no knowledge of fetal laws at all, I do however recognize the "SO HAH" cry of "any offense is against the mother" argument designed to pretend one is now officially in the "victim status" category...
> ...and the "fools" thing...just can't climb that academic ladder high enough can ya?


Can you infer the foolish language below ?

In the context of an " eye for an eye " , or equal retribution , an implementation of the death penalty stipulates a double entendre , which is that when one removes a wright to life of another they in fact remove their own wright to life .

Hence , had the sycophants attempted to impose a death penalty on behalf of a fetus, the debase pretenses that a fetus has constitutional protections would have unraveled .

Can you further identify the shrouded admission that the crime is in fact against the mother from the phrase " had the injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother " ?

The farcical language is intended as a conjecture for fools seeking to establish a fetus as a person ( per son - male countable by census ) and a legal victim .

Again , a fetus is the private property of the mother until birth , though certainly more valued and less replaceable than simple material items , and elevated penalties can be accordingly applied as offenses against the mother .

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct *had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.*
...
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, *the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.*


** Foreign Rules Under Natural Freedoms **



Frankeneinstein said:


> *Should those considerations extend to the border?*
> Not sure that you actually understand that by claiming that there are what you consider to be valid reasons for controlling the minority population is in fact an admission that abortion is a way toward that goal...you have, to this point made no direct claim that abortion does not bring the minority population down, only claims that anyone who dare speak out about it is guilty of chutzpa [sp]...
> ...Lets keep abortion legal, and you stop pretending the constitution addresses the issue in its citizen vs non citizen position...
> ...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that covers abortion, nothing, cept maybe that no *state *may deny anyone the *right to life*...but that is not really a deduction is it? so you may need to use your deductive powers to bring about a different meaning.


A wright to life exists for citizens who comprise the foundation of a state .

Equal protection is afforded to individuals having been born who are under legal protectorates of the state .

The country of origin is responsible for reprising violations of their citizens who are sojourning abroad without legal permission to do so , and extradition of offenders or prosecution by foreign states may occur by petition or treaty , though a necessity for compliance by a foreign government is not a fundamental necessity .


** It Is Reality Sew Grow Up And Accept It **



Frankeneinstein said:


> It's nothing more than a chant, an incantation of "woe is me"...ohm ohm ohm ohm


It is a success criteria of nature , where failure of perpetuity is an allusion to the metaphors of final judgment and eternal damnation .


----------



## Frankeneinstein

**OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB**



Monk-Eye said:


> Any must be born for equal protection with a citizen , else as birth is a requirement for citizenship ,


which is what makes the baby/fetus a non citizen






> any other not having been born would be receiving more wrights than those granted to a citizen .



also not true, but if you insist on pretending that is the case then fine, lets just make sure it is only the same rights they receive



> It is a straight forward deduction ;


as is deducing the baby/fetus is a non citizen as the line of reasoning is identical in each case



> and , whether a fetus is referred to as a non citizen , or not , is irrelevant to a completion criteria to be a member of and therefore of concern by a state .


for "citizenship" purposes, not the "right to life" which is clearly stated and guaranteed in/by the 14th amendment...your pretzel logic and ignoring of intent is anything but straightforward...
...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution claiming  abortion is a right, it is just not there...
btw, see the lefts border argument concerning a "non citizen" and a states concern for them, you will see further evidence of why your claim is anything but straight forward.
...one more time, ya wanna claim abortion should be legal? be my guest, but if you want to claim the constitution protects it then you have entered into a lie.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Posers Versus Supreme Court Scholars "*

** Law Of Excluded Middle **


Frankeneinstein said:


> **OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB**
> which is what makes the baby/fetus a non citizen
> ...
> as is deducing the baby/fetus is a non citizen as the line of reasoning is identical in each case


A baby has been born , and it is either a citizen or entitled to equal protection , that is presuming it is subject to us jurisdiction .

As for your assertion that a fetus is a non citizen , a cloud , along with a myriad of many inchoate entities , are non citizens and they do not have constitutional protections either , except that they be hue mammon and born .

** Meet The Birth Requirement * *


Frankeneinstein said:


> any other not having been born would be receiving more wrights than those granted to a citizen .
> 
> 
> 
> also not true, but if you insist on pretending that is the case then fine, lets just make sure it is only the same rights they receive
Click to expand...

Sure , once born , the wrights are the same .

** Too Easy **


Frankeneinstein said:


> for "citizenship" purposes, not the "right to life" which is clearly stated and guaranteed in/by the 14th amendment...your pretzel logic and ignoring of intent is anything but straightforward......there is absolutely nothing in the constitution claiming  abortion is a right, it is just not there...
> btw, see the lefts border argument concerning a "non citizen" and a states concern for them, you will see further evidence of why your claim is anything but straight forward.
> ...one more time, ya wanna claim abortion should be legal? be my guest, but if you want to claim the constitution protects it then you have entered into a lie.


Blackmun statement begins " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE .." and then proceeds to relate that a STATE INTEREST in protecting a wright to life begins at birth .

Try reading the us 9th constitutional amendment , because as many , you are confused that abortion has to be enumerated in the constitution for it to be legal .

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Posers Versus Supreme Court Scholars "*


*
The Poser pretend they are worthy of making the supreme court scholars argument.*

*



			* Law Of Excluded Middle *
		
Click to expand...

*


> A baby has been born , and it is either a citizen or entitled to equal protection , that is presuming it is subject to us jurisdiction .


that's true, because it actually says so in the constitution...no deducing necessary



> As for your assertion that a fetus is a non citizen , a cloud , along with a myriad of many inchoate entities , are non citizens and they do not have constitutional protections either , except that they be hue mammon and born .


and the constitution does not afford them, or those who want to abort a baby it's protection.




Monk-Eye said:


> ** Meet The Birth Requirement * *
> Sure , once born , the wrights are the same .


for citizenship.



Monk-Eye said:


> Blackmun statement begins " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE .." and then proceeds to relate that a STATE INTEREST in protecting a wright to life begins at birth .
> He had to say it because the constitution does not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the us 9th constitutional amendment , because as many , you are confused that abortion has to be enumerated in the constitution for it to be legal .[/quotre]
> 
> see, pretending again...you accuse others of being confused when it is you that is/are not following the argument/debate..the argument being made by me is that it has to be in the constitution in order for an act to be unconstitutional, you just keep pretending that this is about everything else so you do not have show where the constitution backs up your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]
> 
> 
> 
> that is true and goes for both sides of the argument, ie. the court you are holding up to make your point is very likely to give babies in the womb the protections "the people" are demanding for it as guaranteed by the constitution...the right to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


EDIT: Not sure what happened here.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Monk-Eye said:


> Blackmun statement begins " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE .." and then proceeds to relate that a STATE INTEREST in protecting a wright to life begins at birth .


of course he said that, he had to since the constitution does not



> Try reading the us 9th constitutional amendment , because as many , you are confused that abortion has to be enumerated in the constitution for it to be legal .



Now why would you try to get away with this? that is my point, it may be a law but it is not found in the constitution and:
First: you are admitting that the right to abortion is not a constitutional right guaranteed by the constitution by claiming that it falls under the 9th amendment which pertains to laws that are not in the constitution

Second: it does not need to be enumerated in the constitution to be legal, it needs to be in the constitution to be called unconstitutional...you seem to be struggling mightily with this simple concept



> Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]



This will come handy if, and or when the SCOTUS rules the unborn are a human life entitled to the protections retained for them by the people



Monk-Eye said:


> " Posers Versus Supreme Court Scholars "


"Posers" pose as being worthy of making supreme court scholar arguments, not because one disagrees with the interpretation of the argument made by the court.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Responding To Babbling Bluff "*

** Poser Spinning Wheels Believing To Go Somewhere **



Frankeneinstein said:


> Now why would you try to get away with this? that is my point, it may be a law but it is not found in the constitution and:  First: *you are admitting that the right to abortion is not a constitutional right guaranteed by the constitution by claiming that it falls under the 9th amendment* which pertains to laws that are not in the constitution
> 
> Second: it does not need to be enumerated in the constitution to be legal, *it needs to be in the constitution to be called unconstitutional*...you seem to be struggling mightily with this simple concept
> 
> This will come handy if, and or when the SCOTUS rules the unborn are a *human life* entitled to the protections retained for them by the people
> 
> "Posers" pose as being worthy of making supreme court scholar arguments, not because one disagrees with the interpretation of the argument made by the court.


You are splitting hairs to assert that " it needs to be in the constitution be called unconstitutional " , as " others retained by the people " is a corollary to " certain rights " - constitutional - in the initial clause , as if wrights retained by the people are not intrinsic with the vernacular term of constitutional , which is absurd .

The logical issue , of course ,  is that a fetus has zero constitutional protections because they have not been born , which is a stipulation for constitutional protections ; that is also to state , a fetus is also not yet one of " the people " .


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Responding To Babbling Bluff "*
> 
> ** Poser Spinning Wheels Believing To Go Somewhere **


always with the scholarly language


Monk-Eye said:


> You are splitting hairs to assert that


yeah, when does that ever happen in legal arguments




> " it needs to be in the constitution be called unconstitutional " , as " others retained by the people " is a corollary to " certain rights " - constitutional - in the initial clause , as if wrights retained by the people are not intrinsic with the vernacular term of constitutional , which is absurd .



the entire point, which I first thought you were just ignoring, now seems to be going completely over your head to the point as not being recognizable to you..
..."where does the constitution say abortion is a right"? and you point to the requirement to be an American citizen and then translate that into a medical finding of what a fetus/baby is...and nothing about the actual question is answered



> The logical issue , of course , is that a fetus has zero constitutional protections because they have not been born , which is a stipulation for constitutional protections ; that is also to state , a fetus is also not yet one of " the people " .


where does it say that in the constitution?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Disregard For Authoritarian Histrionics "*

** Blacklisting Whitelisting And Catch-all Rules **



Frankeneinstein said:


> the entire point, which I first thought you were just ignoring, now *seems to be going completely over your head* to the point as not being recognizable to you..
> ...*"where does the constitution say abortion is a right"?* and you point to the requirement to be an American citizen and then translate that into a medical finding of what a fetus/baby is...and nothing about the actual question is answered


The point seems to be going over your head that because a wright is not enumerated in the constitution does not mean it is not a constitutional wright .

Your perception of constitutional wrights is similar with that of a dictatorship and police states where anything not allowed by a government is not allowed by default ; that is not how the constitution is devised .

A amendment entitling congress to prescribe or to proscribe abortion is not included in the enumerated powers of us constitution - Enumerated powers (United States) - Wikipedia .

The 9th amendment is raised for individualism as " anti-statism " against pretentious conjectures by " anti-federalists " who seek to override individual liberty at a state level through the 10th amendment .


** Reductio Ad Absurdum **



Frankeneinstein said:


> where does it say that in the constitution?


The majority opinion for roe v wade was written by blackmun whom stated thus , _"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .
_
The statement of blackmun is a direct inference defining birth as a criteria for citizenship in the us 14th amendment , such that birth is consequently a criteria for a wright to life .

A fetus does not have constitutional protection for a wright to life , a citizen is not prohibited by constitution from acquiring an abortion , therefore a citizen is entitled to acquire an abortion .


** Colloquial Options **


Frankeneinstein said:


> always with the scholarly language
> yeah, when does that ever happen in legal arguments


These political forums . as public opinions , are based in sophistry .

When scholastic rules are required , conformance with its standards is followed .


** Advanced Topics **

Less tyrannical constitutions are devised in terms of negative and positive wrights , where negative wrights are phrased as proscriptions against government , and where positive wrights are phrased as prescriptions for government action .

From negative wrights and positive wrights , negative and positive liberties for individuals arise , where negative liberties are freedoms of individuals to act without interference from government , and where positive liberties are endowments to individuals from government .

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia
Negative liberty - Wikipedia
Positive liberty - Wikipedia


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Frankeneinstein said:


> **OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB**
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any must be born for equal protection with a citizen , else as birth is a requirement for citizenship ,
> 
> 
> 
> which is what makes the baby/fetus a non citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any other not having been born would be receiving more wrights than those granted to a citizen .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> also not true, but if you insist on pretending that is the case then fine, lets just make sure it is only the same rights they receive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a straight forward deduction ;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as is deducing the baby/fetus is a non citizen as the line of reasoning is identical in each case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and , whether a fetus is referred to as a non citizen , or not , is irrelevant to a completion criteria to be a member of and therefore of concern by a state .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for "citizenship" purposes, not the "right to life" which is clearly stated and guaranteed in/by the 14th amendment...your pretzel logic and ignoring of intent is anything but straightforward...
> ...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution claiming  abortion is a right, it is just not there...
> btw, see the lefts border argument concerning a "non citizen" and a states concern for them, you will see further evidence of why your claim is anything but straight forward.
> ...one more time, ya wanna claim abortion should be legal? be my guest, but if you want to claim the constitution protects it then you have entered into a lie.
Click to expand...

_“...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution claiming abortion is a right, it is just not there...”_

No one said there was.

But there is a right of privacy, prohibiting the state from interfering in citizens’ private lives and decisions concerning personal matters – such as whether to have a child or not.

And for the state to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law by ‘banning’ abortion violates that right of privacy, where such measures are in fact un-Constitutional.

Moreover, the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The right of privacy can be found here in the Constitution:

“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions”

Griswold v. Connecticut


----------



## LilOlLady

Abortions are not about access to healthcare. Not to be used either as a form of birth control when we have numerous methods over the counter and by prescription from your doctor. My doctor keeps a jar of free condoms in her exam room. A woman's choice is the choice of birth control she and her partner chose to use.
More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease and AIDS. Abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973. In the United States, the abortion rate for Black women is almost 4 times that of White women. On average, 900 Black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This tragedy continues to impact the population levels of African Americans in the United States. Is this a conspiracy.?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Need Versus Want "*

** Owning Up To Gluttony **


LilOlLady said:


> Abortions are not about access to healthcare. Not to be used either as a form of birth control when we have numerous methods over the counter and by prescription from your doctor. My doctor keeps a jar of free condoms in her exam room. A woman's choice is the choice of birth control she and her partner chose to use.
> More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease and AIDS. Abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973. In the United States, the abortion rate for Black women is almost 4 times that of White women. On average, 900 Black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This tragedy continues to impact the population levels of African Americans in the United States.* Is this a conspiracy.?*


It is not a conspiracy , it is personal responsibility .


----------

