A dog is killed with more mercy than an unborn baby

[Chuz Life]

Let's bet on that.

How much are you willing to loose?

Only a matter of time before they are struck down, buddy.

You better move fast, leftard.

The makeup of the SCOTUS is fast changing as we speak.

 

[Chuz Life]

As always...the American people vehemently disagree with you. That's why the laws exist, have so for some time, and have not been "struck down". The only thing that is "bullshit" is your hate, envy, and anti-American sentiments.

Sorry, guy charging someone with murder for accidently killing something the woman it is in can kill at will is bullshit.

Even the bible only treated causing a miscarriage as something worthy of a fine.

If that's what you think the fucking law says, you either haven't read it or you have the reading comprehension of a 3 year old.

 

[Chuz Life]

Usually deformed? You just make up facts to justify killing babies for convenience sake. Did you honestly think we'd let you get away with that lie?:

Guy, this is referring to LATE abortions, not all abortions. Try to keep on subject.

Only late abortions produce enough of that sweet, sweet fetus meat to be useful, and those are only done for medical reasons.

/----/ you are a disgusting human being and that is being generous. Show a link that backs up your claim.

Late-Term Abortions Are Rare and 'Partial Birth Abortions' Illegal. Why Do They Keep Dominating the Reproductive-Rights Debate?

Late-term abortions are generally a last resort. While abortion opponents push the idea that women get late-term abortions because they change their minds last minute, or just can't be bothered to do it sooner—that they use late-term abortion "as birth control"—getting a surgical abortion is a serious, invasive, and expensive procedure, especially the later in pregnancy it takes place. Pregnancy itself is also quite difficult on women's bodies, and disruptive to their day-to-day lives. To believe there are women routinely putting their bodies through months of unwanted pregnancy, shelling out thousands of dollars, and undergoing serious surgery rather than use condoms or get an IUD or get an earlier abortion or whatever requires believing not just that most women are immoral or irresponsible but also, and simultaneously, wealthy, stupid, and masochistic. But abortion doctors, medical groups, and people who've gotten late-term abortions themselves all attest that these aren't decisions most women or medical professionals take lightly. Abortions procured in the third-trimester generally involve situations where the mother's life or health is in jeopardy, the fetus will die outside of the womb anyway, or the fetus is found to have a severe genetic abnormality that wasn't previously apparent.

Rape pregnancies are rare too.

Does that ever stop you leftards from trying to use them for political gain in the overall abortion debate?

 

[JoeB131]

You better move fast, leftard.

The makeup of the SCOTUS is fast changing as we speak.

You keep telling yourself that. but no Justice, Conservative or Liberal, wants the Orange Shitgibbon to name his replacement.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You better move fast, leftard.

The makeup of the SCOTUS is fast changing as we speak.

You keep telling yourself that. but no Justice, Conservative or Liberal, wants the Orange Shitgibbon to name his replacement.

/----/ And you know this how? Just your sick twisted wishful thinking.

 

[JoeB131]

Rape pregnancies are rare too.

Does that ever stop you leftards from trying to use them for political gain in the overall abortion debate?

Actually, I agree. The "Rape" argument is dishonestly used by pro-Choice advocates. Of course, you guys make it easy when you try to counter-argue by putting totally inappropriate adjectives in front of the word "Rape".

So let's put late abortions and rape abortions completely off to the side, and have an HONEST discussion.

Should a woman be allowed to have a safe legal abortion in the first trimester of a pregnancy that was incurred in a consensual sex act where birth control failed or was neglected?

And the answer to that is an unequivocal "Yes", because the alternative is women going to shady back-alley operators who will do harm.

You see, herein lies the problem. A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will ALWAYS find a way not to be pregnant. I used the example of the Philippines earlier, where despite having the kind of abortion laws you want and a highly religious population, they still have 500K abortions a year. (A higher per-capita rate than the US)

A better case study would be Romania. The Communist dictator of that country had a wild idea about making Romania a major power by increasing it's population by banning not only abortion but birth control. And it worked for exactly one year. After that, women figured out how to end or avoid pregnancies

Now, there are ways to reduce the number of abortions, but they involve more government. Paid family leave, comprehensive sex education, universal health care.

 

[JoeB131]

/----/ And you know this how? Just your sick twisted wishful thinking.

Not seeing any of them talking about retirement, do you?

 

[JoeB131]

If that's what you think the fucking law says, you either haven't read it or you have the reading comprehension of a 3 year old.

The law is still stupid. Now, they take a case like Laci Peterson, where the asshole murdered his pregnant wife, which really does make him contemptable...

But that's not a good source of law.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ And you know this how? Just your sick twisted wishful thinking.

Not seeing any of them talking about retirement, do you?

/----/ That's it? That's your proof? How do you know what they say to their colleagues and family members? You desperate dope BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Chuz Life]

You better move fast, leftard.

The makeup of the SCOTUS is fast changing as we speak.

You keep telling yourself that. but no Justice, Conservative or Liberal, wants the Orange Shitgibbon to name his replacement.

Wait and see.

One already in and bader ain't getting any younger.

 

[Chuz Life]

Rape pregnancies are rare too.

Does that ever stop you leftards from trying to use them for political gain in the overall abortion debate?

Actually, I agree. The "Rape" argument is dishonestly used by pro-Choice advocates. Of course, you guys make it easy when you try to counter-argue by putting totally inappropriate adjectives in front of the word "Rape".

So let's put late abortions and rape abortions completely off to the side, and have an HONEST discussion.

Should a woman be allowed to have a safe legal abortion in the first trimester of a pregnancy that was incurred in a consensual sex act where birth control failed or was neglected?

And the answer to that is an unequivocal "Yes", because the alternative is women going to shady back-alley operators who will do harm.

You see, herein lies the problem. A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will ALWAYS find a way not to be pregnant. I used the example of the Philippines earlier, where despite having the kind of abortion laws you want and a highly religious population, they still have 500K abortions a year. (A higher per-capita rate than the US)

A better case study would be Romania. The Communist dictator of that country had a wild idea about making Romania a major power by increasing it's population by banning not only abortion but birth control. And it worked for exactly one year. After that, women figured out how to end or avoid pregnancies

Now, there are ways to reduce the number of abortions, but they involve more government. Paid family leave, comprehensive sex education, universal health care.

The answer is no.

Children have a right to their lives and to the EQUAL protection of our laws from the moment their life begins.

Furthermore, how much should society really care when a child killer manages to kill themselves while in the act of killing a child in a back alley? Of course we do care and maybe even should care on some level. . . But to make the killing of a child LEGAL just to try to prevent the deaths of the child's killers?

No fucking way.

You will never get me to buy into that kind of BULLSHIT.

 

[JoeB131]

The answer is no.

Children have a right to their lives and to the EQUAL protection of our laws from the moment their life begins.

Furthermore, how much should society really care when a child killer manages to kill themselves while in the act of killing a child in a back alley? Of course we do care and maybe even should care on some level. . . But to make the killing of a child LEGAL just to try to prevent the deaths of the child's killers?

No fucking way.

You will never get me to buy into that kind of BULLSHIT.

So would you advocate imprisoning women who have abortions, giving them the same sentences you'd give a person who murdered an actual person.


You see, even before Roe, They NEVER arrested women who had abortions. Abortion laws weren't like the Murder Laws in oldy days, they were more like the prostitution laws. Yeah, they are on the books and everyone ignores them. Then they realized the laws are doing more harm than good, and they repealed them.

 

[Chuz Life]

The answer is no.

Children have a right to their lives and to the EQUAL protection of our laws from the moment their life begins.

Furthermore, how much should society really care when a child killer manages to kill themselves while in the act of killing a child in a back alley? Of course we do care and maybe even should care on some level. . . But to make the killing of a child LEGAL just to try to prevent the deaths of the child's killers?

No fucking way.

You will never get me to buy into that kind of BULLSHIT.

So would you advocate imprisoning women who have abortions, giving them the same sentences you'd give a person who murdered an actual person.


You see, even before Roe, They NEVER arrested women who had abortions. Abortion laws weren't like the Murder Laws in oldy days, they were more like the prostitution laws. Yeah, they are on the books and everyone ignores them. Then they realized the laws are doing more harm than good, and they repealed them.

You are so obtuse (and dense) it ain't funny.

A person who gets drunk and ACCIDENTALLY kills a child in the womb in a DUI accident, or bank robber who even unintentionally shoots and kills a child in the womb while robbing a bank can be charged with MURDER for kill that child. . . Even if the mother survived the attack.

Why should anyone who INTENTIONALLY kills that same child (figuratively speaking) be charged with anything less?

 

[P@triot]

You better move fast, leftard.

The makeup of the SCOTUS is fast changing as we speak.

You keep telling yourself that. but no Justice, Conservative or Liberal, wants the Orange Shitgibbon to name his replacement.

Well apparently Kennedy does. And it will take an absolute miracle for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to live another 4 years (her ego prevented her from stepping down under the Obama Administration as she should have). And there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that she lives another 8 years (the statistically likely term for President Trump).

 

[P@triot]

So would you advocate imprisoning women who have abortions, giving them the same sentences you'd give a person who murdered an actual person.

Absolutely. And really, they should receive a significantly worse punishment considering an infant/fetus is completely defenseless. Even grown women who are the victim of maniacs like Ted Bundy have the ability to defend themselves. An infant/fetus has absolutely NONE. They don't even know that they are in danger.

I'll never understand why you believe that people are entitled to be 100% devoid of responsibility for their own actions. Such a bizarre position to take.

 

[P@triot]

The answer is no.

Children have a right to their lives and to the EQUAL protection of our laws from the moment their life begins.

Furthermore, how much should society really care when a child killer manages to kill themselves while in the act of killing a child in a back alley? Of course we do care and maybe even should care on some level. . . But to make the killing of a child LEGAL just to try to prevent the deaths of the child's killers?

No fucking way.

You will never get me to buy into that kind of BULLSHIT.

So would you advocate imprisoning women who have abortions, giving them the same sentences you'd give a person who murdered an actual person.


You see, even before Roe, They NEVER arrested women who had abortions. Abortion laws weren't like the Murder Laws in oldy days, they were more like the prostitution laws. Yeah, they are on the books and everyone ignores them. Then they realized the laws are doing more harm than good, and they repealed them.

You are so obtuse (and dense) it ain't funny.

A person who gets drunk and ACCIDENTALLY kills a child in the womb in a DUI accident, or bank robber who even unintentionally shoots and kills a child in the womb while robbing a bank can be charged with MURDER for kill that child. . . Even if the mother survived the attack.

Why should anyone who INTENTIONALLY kills that same child (figuratively speaking) be charged with anything less?

Chuz....stop using LOGIC and REASON with the left! You know they don't respond well to logic and reason. They prefer irrational emotion.

 

[Chuz Life]

The answer is no.

Children have a right to their lives and to the EQUAL protection of our laws from the moment their life begins.

Furthermore, how much should society really care when a child killer manages to kill themselves while in the act of killing a child in a back alley? Of course we do care and maybe even should care on some level. . . But to make the killing of a child LEGAL just to try to prevent the deaths of the child's killers?

No fucking way.

You will never get me to buy into that kind of BULLSHIT.

So would you advocate imprisoning women who have abortions, giving them the same sentences you'd give a person who murdered an actual person.


You see, even before Roe, They NEVER arrested women who had abortions. Abortion laws weren't like the Murder Laws in oldy days, they were more like the prostitution laws. Yeah, they are on the books and everyone ignores them. Then they realized the laws are doing more harm than good, and they repealed them.

You are so obtuse (and dense) it ain't funny.

A person who gets drunk and ACCIDENTALLY kills a child in the womb in a DUI accident, or bank robber who even unintentionally shoots and kills a child in the womb while robbing a bank can be charged with MURDER for kill that child. . . Even if the mother survived the attack.

Why should anyone who INTENTIONALLY kills that same child (figuratively speaking) be charged with anything less?

Chuz....stop using LOGIC and REASON with the left! You know they don't respond well to logic and reason. They prefer irrational emotion.

Bizzare as it is, sometimes figuring out how to bring things down to their 2nd grade level of understanding actually helps me to refine my own arguments even more.

 

[hazlnut]

My dog was 14-years-old when we finally had to put her to sleep.

The veternarian was quite gentle, inserting a needle, and then giving the dog an anesthetic so that it would feel no pain, and then a killing drug that gently put it to sleep.

It was a merciful, gentle, painless death, and a far better fate than an unborn human baby gets when it is aborted.

Unborn babies do not receive an anesthetic before they are scraped out of the womb, or torn out with pliers, or sucked out, or torn in pieces by the abortionist. They die a painful, agonizing death that we would not even allow for if done on any animal.

The brutality and savagery of abortion is a gaping, bloody wound that is tearing apart America. Abortion is the reason our nation is pulling apart at the seams, abortion is what is fueling the hatred Americans have for each other nowadays.

So, you think carrying to term and then taking the baby to the vet is a better way to handle an unwanted pregnancy?

Seems harsh, letting the kid think he's got a chance... Or like getting booted from the concert venue right before the show starts, after waiting 9mos in line outside...

 

[hazlnut]

What I find interesting is that liberals want to kill unborn babies as a way to save the government money on welfare, and they don't have a clue how morally repulsive it is to have that idea.

It's God's grace shining through the hands of a compassionate doctor.

 

[Chuz Life]

The answer is no.

Children have a right to their lives and to the EQUAL protection of our laws from the moment their life begins.

Furthermore, how much should society really care when a child killer manages to kill themselves while in the act of killing a child in a back alley? Of course we do care and maybe even should care on some level. . . But to make the killing of a child LEGAL just to try to prevent the deaths of the child's killers?

No fucking way.

You will never get me to buy into that kind of BULLSHIT.

So would you advocate imprisoning women who have abortions, giving them the same sentences you'd give a person who murdered an actual person.


You see, even before Roe, They NEVER arrested women who had abortions. Abortion laws weren't like the Murder Laws in oldy days, they were more like the prostitution laws. Yeah, they are on the books and everyone ignores them. Then they realized the laws are doing more harm than good, and they repealed them.

You are so obtuse (and dense) it ain't funny.

A person who gets drunk and ACCIDENTALLY kills a child in the womb in a DUI accident, or bank robber who even unintentionally shoots and kills a child in the womb while robbing a bank can be charged with MURDER for killing that child. . . Even if the mother survived the attack.

Why should anyone who INTENTIONALLY kills that same child (figuratively speaking) be charged with anything less?

Chuz....stop using LOGIC and REASON with the left! You know they don't respond well to logic and reason. They prefer irrational emotion.

Do you think I will get a straight answer?