A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

And I'm still waiting for one of you fake conservative internet bad asses to tell us when you are going to start refusing to endorse any political candidates, or lawmakers who do not publicly endorse your desire to see women who seek abortions proverbially flogged.

Or, are you hoping that they don't have to, can get elected without publicly taking a position, then pushing your agenda on an unsuspecting populace? Because I feel fairly confident in stating that no politician who actually professed to endorse the positions you are taking on this anonymous internet forum would ever actually get elected. Which is, I suppose, why none of you spewing this bullshit, here, actually expect any politician to publicly endorse the positions you are spouting.

As soon as you can show me endorsing or refusing to endorse any candidate. I am not a Republican and never have been. I don't endorse or support candidates who don't support my values. That's why I so rarely vote.... there are few viable candidates in my mind.

I can't. Because every time I have asked the question every one of you deflects, or ducks. So? Who are you supporting for President, Governor (assuming you have a gubernatorial race this year), and Congress? I would like to know what political candidates are espousing your position publicly.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Anathema]

I can't. Because every time I have asked the question every one of you deflects, or ducks. So? Who are you supporting for President, Governor (assuming you have a gubernatorial race this year), and Congress? I would like to know what political candidates are espousing your position publicly.

I'm an ultra-Conservative/Authoritarian who lives in Massachusetts.....

I will be writing my name in for POTUS in November (seeing no Conservative candidate on my ballot).

No Gubernatorial race in MA this year.

I recently moved to a new Congressional District so I need to do some more research to see if anyone decent is likely to be running. Since that's likely not the case, I'll be ignoring those parts of the ballot.

 

[Mertex]

Their is nothing hypothetical about calling an unborn a fetus....it is fact. There is nothing hypothetical about fertilized eggs being sold for consumption. And by what statement do you deduct that I don't know that a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards? Where did I say that wasn't the case? Where was "single cell organism" even mentioned in my post?

And you strayed from the OP's original hypothetical statement...so don't use that as an excuse when your ignorance is pointed out.

So you agree that any abortion kills a living developing child?

Don't be ignorant. It is not a child at 20 weeks.....geez.....I bet you scramble chickens for breakfast every morning.

BTW, whens the last time you heard of a pregnant woman being referred to as being "with fetus"?

It doesn't matter what someone wants to refer to it....the scientific name for it is fetus. You ignorant conservatives want to call a fertilized egg a person.....even before it drops down to the uterus, still doesn't make it a person.

People always refer to a woman as being "with child". But hey, you're the regressive sodomite enabler, so just keep on being you, and I'll do the same.

Ignoramus.....pregnant women who want to give birth, refer to the fetus as their baby and being with child......that doesn't make a fertilized egg a baby or a child. But keep on using semantics to try and prove your point.....science may be too difficult for you.

And, no, conservatives are the regressives.....remember, you all want to go back to the 50's.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws prove completely against your denials.
"(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

So what? It is still a Fetus.

fetus
[fe´tus] (L.)
the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth.

Would you care to explain the difference between "a human fetus" and "a human being that is in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development?" or can we agree they are one and the same thing?

And your point? That still doesn't make abortion illegal.

Of course we both know that you can not afford to acknowledge the truth on that.

Bwahahaha....I guess you failed there. Of course it is a human fetus. A human wouldn't carry the fetus of an animal. But, I still don't get your point.

Just like you can not afford to admit that a child in the womb is already recognized LEGALLY as a child.

You seem to be dense in the head. A child is no longer in the womb if it is a child. What you seem to have trouble realizing is that abortion is "legal".

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm an ultra-Conservative/Authoritarian who lives in Massachusetts.....

AKA Tory. If there were more of you in 1775, we'd all still be singing "God Save the Queen".

 

[Mertex]

Why would anyone be "pro-choice-to-murder"?

Just like why would anyone be pro-life and support the death penalty? "Pro-life-to-death"

 

[Conservative65]

My opposition to abortion isn't of the mindset of forcing someone to have a child. It's EXPECTING someone that CHOSE to do what it takes to create one to take RESPONSIBILITY for the results of the CHOICE they made that caused that result. You think killing the result is responsible. It's not.

They are taking responsibility....just not the way you want to force them to. Ending a pregnancy is their choice, and just because you don't agree with that doesn't mean that the country has to do what you feel is the "right" thing. The majority of American favor abortion, so you are in the minority.

Abortion

Why do you bleeding heart Liberals expect, as of today, those of us not part of the process that created the child to be financially responsible for the child when the one that chose to do so isn't being financially responsible?

Because us bleeding heart liberals are not being hypocritical when we claim we care about people. It's the children that suffer when you claim you don't want to help the poor, and obviously, you calloused conservatives (which some consider themselves to be Christian) are nothing but hypocrites. You are against abortion, but you don't give a crap about the fetus after it is born. You're not pro-life, you are pro-birth.

Republican motto: "Once you are born, you're on your own"

Why are the rest of us forced to pay for a choice we were told to butt out of?

Because you want to live in this country where the majority of Americans have a heart and have agreed to do so. If you don't like it, move to another country.

Killing a life because someone doesn't like the results of spreading her legs isn't responsibility no matter how you try to justify it.

There you go, you sexist pig. It's always just the woman's fault. She wouldn't be spreading her legs if some male with no integrity was right there ready to spew his seed. But being the conservative that you are, you always defend the men....pity the stupid women who vote Republican when sexist pigs like you are so open about your sexism.

Bleeding heart Liberals are hypocritical when they say they care. You say you are compassionate then promote someone else being forced to fund what you think should be done. If you cared, you'd get together and fund yourselves what you say needs to be funded. Since you don't, saying you care and showing you care don't match.

I'm not the one whining here about having to provide a miniscule amount of tax money to help the under-privileged, you are. You claim to care about the fetus, but you don't really give a crap about it once it is born. That's what is hypocritical. You support that which doesn't cost you any money, just lip service.

If the majority of Americans believe like you that only saying you care while promoting someone else funding your care, they don't have a heart. The problem with you agreeing to do so is that it's not your money that's doing it. No matter how much you try, you can't have compassion by demanding someone else be forced to pay. It doesn't work that way.

It's the way our country operates. Majority rules. If you don't like this country and the way it operates, move. And, right now, the majority of Americans want to help the underprivileged. Thank God for that. The ones that claim to be "Godly" are the ones whining about that little bit of tax they pay, while they don't mind all the money that goes to corporations. That's greed, when you help the rich because you think they can do something for you. So very Christian.

If you care, prove it by funding it. Since we both know you won't, so much for your claims you fucking liar.

I do fund it. I pay my taxes and I don't fucking whine about it like you do, sexist pig. You're the fucking liar.....acting like you give a shit about a fetus, but not giving a damn about an actual child.

A child in the womb is an ACTUAL CHILD too.

It is a fetus with the potential to become a child. We can play with semantics all day, if you want to.

Do you give a damn about them and their rights too?

Of course I do, but I give the woman who is already born and breathing more rights than a fetus.

It's a child that is yet to be born. Seems you play semantics in order to justify murder, baby killer.

 

[Conservative65]

Why would anyone be "pro-choice-to-murder"?

Just like why would anyone be pro-life and support the death penalty? "Pro-life-to-death"

So, you equate an innocent, unborn child to a guilty person that deserves to die?

 

[Czernobog]

I can't. Because every time I have asked the question every one of you deflects, or ducks. So? Who are you supporting for President, Governor (assuming you have a gubernatorial race this year), and Congress? I would like to know what political candidates are espousing your position publicly.

I'm an ultra-Conservative/Authoritarian who lives in Massachusetts.....

I will be writing my name in for POTUS in November (seeing no Conservative candidate on my ballot).

No Gubernatorial race in MA this year.

I recently moved to a new Congressional District so I need to do some more research to see if anyone decent is likely to be running. Since that's likely not the case, I'll be ignoring those parts of the ballot.

So, basically, you're admitting that your position is so absurdly extreme that no candidate who ever hopes to actually get elected would ever adopt your positions.

Well, I congratulate you for being true to your position. Enjoy the political fringes where you will never have any effect on the policies, and laws of this nation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

There are huge waiting lists to adopt new born of all races, you fail.

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

Well..... my parents are both extremely conservative... and I myself was adopted. And my parents founded a church, and they have always promoted adoption. Many in my parents conservative church adopted.

And that proves that only conservatives are willing to do that? I know many liberals that adopt, too, and are willing to help the poor besides supporting programs that do that.

Dave Thomas founder of Wendy's, was a massively conservative person, and he was adopted, and he of course started the Dave Thomas foundation for adoption.

Geez, now you've listed two people who have adopted and are conservatives....I guess in your mind that settles it, only conservatives adopt. Bwahahaha.

The Gift of Adoption Fund charity was stated by Christian fundamentalists. I would assume.... they were likely conservative. I don't meet many people described as fundamentalists, that are left-wing liberals.

Maybe because you aren't looking in the right places? Many of the so called fundamentalists that push archaic ideas and call themselves Republicans have taken Christianity to a new level....one they've created themselves, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. There are many true Christians that don't agree with the archaic rules Republicans are trying to push....and that doesn't make them any less Christian.

And, my point was that it wasn't just "conservatives" that were doing the adopting. Maybe if you had followed the whole conversation instead of just jumping in and offering your sophomoric responses (as if I had said that conservatives "never" adopt) you would have understood that.

Now as for proving all adopt is one group or another... good luck. I doubt there are any numbers either way.

Which, if you had read my previous comments you would have understood that I was trying to point that out. Instead, you named a few conservatives that have adopted. Logic is not your strong suit.

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

 

[Conservative65]

I can't. Because every time I have asked the question every one of you deflects, or ducks. So? Who are you supporting for President, Governor (assuming you have a gubernatorial race this year), and Congress? I would like to know what political candidates are espousing your position publicly.

I'm an ultra-Conservative/Authoritarian who lives in Massachusetts.....

I will be writing my name in for POTUS in November (seeing no Conservative candidate on my ballot).

No Gubernatorial race in MA this year.

I recently moved to a new Congressional District so I need to do some more research to see if anyone decent is likely to be running. Since that's likely not the case, I'll be ignoring those parts of the ballot.

So, basically, you're admitting that your position is so absurdly extreme that no candidate who ever hopes to actually get elected would ever adopt your positions.

Well, I congratulate you for being true to your position. Enjoy the political fringes where you will never have any effect on the policies, and laws of this nation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Enjoy your life where you're willing to compromise principled beliefs. Since you are, it proves you don't have any principles.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why would anyone be "pro-choice-to-murder"?

Just like why would anyone be pro-life and support the death penalty? "Pro-life-to-death"

So, you equate an innocent, unborn child to a guilty person that deserves to die?

Remember "Every Sperm is Sacred"?

 

[Chuz Life]

So you agree that any abortion kills a living developing child?

Don't be ignorant. It is not a child at 20 weeks.....geez.....I bet you scramble chickens for breakfast every morning.

BTW, whens the last time you heard of a pregnant woman being referred to as being "with fetus"?

It doesn't matter what someone wants to refer to it....the scientific name for it is fetus. You ignorant conservatives want to call a fertilized egg a person.....even before it drops down to the uterus, still doesn't make it a person.

People always refer to a woman as being "with child". But hey, you're the regressive sodomite enabler, so just keep on being you, and I'll do the same.

Ignoramus.....pregnant women who want to give birth, refer to the fetus as their baby and being with child......that doesn't make a fertilized egg a baby or a child. But keep on using semantics to try and prove your point.....science may be too difficult for you.

And, no, conservatives are the regressives.....remember, you all want to go back to the 50's.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws prove completely against your denials.
"(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

So what? It is still a Fetus.

fetus
[fe´tus] (L.)
the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth.

Yes, it's a stage of the development of a human being. Do you have a point?

Yes, I have a point......unlike the one that forms the top of your head.....it's a fetus, not a person.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a PERSON. . . then how do you explain our fetal homicide laws which make it a crime of MURDER for killing a CHILD IN THE WOMB in a criminal act?

The very definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act.

Isn't it.

 

[Conservative65]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

There are huge waiting lists to adopt new born of all races, you fail.

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

Feel free to point out were I claimed it was only conservatives adopting. Damn you regressive sodomite enablers are so pathetic.

You're the idiot.....you tried to imply that when I suggested that those opposing abortion adopt the unwanted child. Maybe you don't understand the English language, which wouldn't surprise me.

And, I'm sure conservatives will also adopt the extremely deformed babies to raise, the ones that are going to be a vegetable for life and require medical attention for life (the kind of medical care that you Republicans also don't want to provide) because you Republican/conservatives are so compassionate. If anyone is an idiot, it has to be conservatives....they want to do away with the very thing that precludes abortion and at the same time do away with abortion. Logic is not your forte, is it?

Are you claiming Liberals are compassionate because they support mandated programs by the government for the poor? If you are, you're the idiot. Compassion doesn't come from a mandate by the taker but a willingness by the giver.

 

[Conservative65]

So you agree that any abortion kills a living developing child?

Don't be ignorant. It is not a child at 20 weeks.....geez.....I bet you scramble chickens for breakfast every morning.

BTW, whens the last time you heard of a pregnant woman being referred to as being "with fetus"?

It doesn't matter what someone wants to refer to it....the scientific name for it is fetus. You ignorant conservatives want to call a fertilized egg a person.....even before it drops down to the uterus, still doesn't make it a person.

People always refer to a woman as being "with child". But hey, you're the regressive sodomite enabler, so just keep on being you, and I'll do the same.

Ignoramus.....pregnant women who want to give birth, refer to the fetus as their baby and being with child......that doesn't make a fertilized egg a baby or a child. But keep on using semantics to try and prove your point.....science may be too difficult for you.

And, no, conservatives are the regressives.....remember, you all want to go back to the 50's.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws prove completely against your denials.
"(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

So what? It is still a Fetus.

fetus
[fe´tus] (L.)
the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth.

Would you care to explain the difference between "a human fetus" and "a human being that is in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development?" or can we agree they are one and the same thing?

And your point? That still doesn't make abortion illegal.

Of course we both know that you can not afford to acknowledge the truth on that.

Bwahahaha....I guess you failed there. Of course it is a human fetus. A human wouldn't carry the fetus of an animal. But, I still don't get your point.

Just like you can not afford to admit that a child in the womb is already recognized LEGALLY as a child.

You seem to be dense in the head. A child is no longer in the womb if it is a child. What you seem to have trouble realizing is that abortion is "legal".

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty.

Still justifying murder, baby killer?

 

[Czernobog]

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

There are huge waiting lists to adopt new born of all races, you fail.

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

Well..... my parents are both extremely conservative... and I myself was adopted. And my parents founded a church, and they have always promoted adoption. Many in my parents conservative church adopted.

And that proves that only conservatives are willing to do that? I know many liberals that adopt, too, and are willing to help the poor besides supporting programs that do that.

Dave Thomas founder of Wendy's, was a massively conservative person, and he was adopted, and he of course started the Dave Thomas foundation for adoption.

Geez, now you've listed two people who have adopted and are conservatives....I guess in your mind that settles it, only conservatives adopt. Bwahahaha.

The Gift of Adoption Fund charity was stated by Christian fundamentalists. I would assume.... they were likely conservative. I don't meet many people described as fundamentalists, that are left-wing liberals.

Maybe because you aren't looking in the right places? Many of the so called fundamentalists that push archaic ideas and call themselves Republicans have taken Christianity to a new level....one they've created themselves, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. There are many true Christians that don't agree with the archaic rules Republicans are trying to push....and that doesn't make them any less Christian.

And, my point was that it wasn't just "conservatives" that were doing the adopting. Maybe if you had followed the whole conversation instead of just jumping in and offering your sophomoric responses (as if I had said that conservatives "never" adopt) you would have understood that.

Now as for proving all adopt is one group or another... good luck. I doubt there are any numbers either way.

Which, if you had read my previous comments you would have understood that I was trying to point that out. Instead, you named a few conservatives that have adopted. Logic is not your strong suit.

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

Again, you equate a life that is gentically human to a human being. That is an ideological leap with no foundation. A non-viable fetus is no more an individual being than is a cluster of cancer cells, which are also genetically human. I do not disagree that the organism destroyed is human, therefore a human life. I take issue calling it a human being, implying that it is a separate, individual organism. It isn't. It is, at best, a parasitic organism, relying solely on its host for its existence.

It IS a separate, individual, living organism. Even a parasite is a separate, individual organism. The word "being" simply means "in existence" or "in a state of being." The human organism exists in a state of being, therefore, is a human being. It becomes a human being at the moment the fused egg and sperm cell reproduce another cell. That single reproductive act immediately qualifies the cells as a living organism. The threshold has been met.

A living organism that is human and is in the state of being, is a human being. This is not ideological, it is simple biology. You are the one who wants to apply ideology here and claim some arbitrary caveat known as "personhood" ...which isn't even an actual word, much less biology.

I have always held the position that I don't have any problems with society collectively deciding when it is appropriate to terminate human life. But we can't have that conversation here until a certain segment acknowledges that we're talking about human life and not some meaningless clump of cells. As long as you are making the effort to distort reality and disavow biology with creation of new words and rejection of proven terms, then we have to fight that battle first so that we're all on the same page.

Likewise, this whole sub-argument regarding "viability" is a wash because... if it's not viable there is no need for an abortion. It's only because it IS viable that abortion is contemplated. So you'll shift and claim you mean "self-supporting" but again, there are grown adults who fail every day at being "self-supporting" so that's not a very good criteria.

Finally, I will add that I am "Pro-Choice" ...I favor a woman's right to choose when to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy. I am in favor of her being able to choose from a variety of birth control options or choose abstinence. If her choices are taken away against her will through commission of a crime such as rape or incest, I believe she should have the choice as to whether or not to terminate any resulting pregnancy. What I do not favor is "Unlimited Choice" for women or anyone. We don't get that in life. We make choices, they have consequences.

 

[Czernobog]

I can't. Because every time I have asked the question every one of you deflects, or ducks. So? Who are you supporting for President, Governor (assuming you have a gubernatorial race this year), and Congress? I would like to know what political candidates are espousing your position publicly.

I'm an ultra-Conservative/Authoritarian who lives in Massachusetts.....

I will be writing my name in for POTUS in November (seeing no Conservative candidate on my ballot).

No Gubernatorial race in MA this year.

I recently moved to a new Congressional District so I need to do some more research to see if anyone decent is likely to be running. Since that's likely not the case, I'll be ignoring those parts of the ballot.

So, basically, you're admitting that your position is so absurdly extreme that no candidate who ever hopes to actually get elected would ever adopt your positions.

Well, I congratulate you for being true to your position. Enjoy the political fringes where you will never have any effect on the policies, and laws of this nation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Enjoy your life where you're willing to compromise principled beliefs. Since you are, it proves you don't have any principles.

I don't. That is because I don't start with principles that are so extremely absurd, that I have to feel the need to compromise them in order to be effective in the governing of our nation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

So you agree that any abortion kills a living developing child?

Don't be ignorant. It is not a child at 20 weeks.....geez.....I bet you scramble chickens for breakfast every morning.

BTW, whens the last time you heard of a pregnant woman being referred to as being "with fetus"?

It doesn't matter what someone wants to refer to it....the scientific name for it is fetus. You ignorant conservatives want to call a fertilized egg a person.....even before it drops down to the uterus, still doesn't make it a person.

People always refer to a woman as being "with child". But hey, you're the regressive sodomite enabler, so just keep on being you, and I'll do the same.

Ignoramus.....pregnant women who want to give birth, refer to the fetus as their baby and being with child......that doesn't make a fertilized egg a baby or a child. But keep on using semantics to try and prove your point.....science may be too difficult for you.

And, no, conservatives are the regressives.....remember, you all want to go back to the 50's.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws prove completely against your denials.
"(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

So what? It is still a Fetus.

fetus
[fe´tus] (L.)
the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth.

Would you care to explain the difference between "a human fetus" and "a human being that is in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development?" or can we agree they are one and the same thing?

And your point? That still doesn't make abortion illegal.

Of course we both know that you can not afford to acknowledge the truth on that.

Bwahahaha....I guess you failed there. Of course it is a human fetus. A human wouldn't carry the fetus of an animal. But, I still don't get your point.

Just like you can not afford to admit that a child in the womb is already recognized LEGALLY as a child.

You seem to be dense in the head. A child is no longer in the womb if it is a child. What you seem to have trouble realizing is that abortion is "legal".

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty.

Your cherry picked definition does not trump all of the other definitions which refute your denials. Including the LEGAL definitions which legally define a child in the womb AS a child and laws which already make it a crime of MURDER to kill one in a criminal act.

 

[Conservative65]

They are taking responsibility....just not the way you want to force them to. Ending a pregnancy is their choice, and just because you don't agree with that doesn't mean that the country has to do what you feel is the "right" thing. The majority of American favor abortion, so you are in the minority.

Abortion

Because us bleeding heart liberals are not being hypocritical when we claim we care about people. It's the children that suffer when you claim you don't want to help the poor, and obviously, you calloused conservatives (which some consider themselves to be Christian) are nothing but hypocrites. You are against abortion, but you don't give a crap about the fetus after it is born. You're not pro-life, you are pro-birth.

Republican motto: "Once you are born, you're on your own"

Because you want to live in this country where the majority of Americans have a heart and have agreed to do so. If you don't like it, move to another country.

Killing a life because someone doesn't like the results of spreading her legs isn't responsibility no matter how you try to justify it.

There you go, you sexist pig. It's always just the woman's fault. She wouldn't be spreading her legs if some male with no integrity was right there ready to spew his seed. But being the conservative that you are, you always defend the men....pity the stupid women who vote Republican when sexist pigs like you are so open about your sexism.

Bleeding heart Liberals are hypocritical when they say they care. You say you are compassionate then promote someone else being forced to fund what you think should be done. If you cared, you'd get together and fund yourselves what you say needs to be funded. Since you don't, saying you care and showing you care don't match.

I'm not the one whining here about having to provide a miniscule amount of tax money to help the under-privileged, you are. You claim to care about the fetus, but you don't really give a crap about it once it is born. That's what is hypocritical. You support that which doesn't cost you any money, just lip service.

If the majority of Americans believe like you that only saying you care while promoting someone else funding your care, they don't have a heart. The problem with you agreeing to do so is that it's not your money that's doing it. No matter how much you try, you can't have compassion by demanding someone else be forced to pay. It doesn't work that way.

It's the way our country operates. Majority rules. If you don't like this country and the way it operates, move. And, right now, the majority of Americans want to help the underprivileged. Thank God for that. The ones that claim to be "Godly" are the ones whining about that little bit of tax they pay, while they don't mind all the money that goes to corporations. That's greed, when you help the rich because you think they can do something for you. So very Christian.

If you care, prove it by funding it. Since we both know you won't, so much for your claims you fucking liar.

I do fund it. I pay my taxes and I don't fucking whine about it like you do, sexist pig. You're the fucking liar.....acting like you give a shit about a fetus, but not giving a damn about an actual child.

A child in the womb is an ACTUAL CHILD too.

Do you give a damn about them and their rights too?

People like Mertex don't see it as a child. That's the only way she can justify killing it for convenience.

And, idiots like you don't see poor people as people...that's the only way you can justify not wanting for them to have food or health care, because money means more to you than humans. You only claim to be against abortion because it doesn't cost you anything to move your lips.

Where did I say poor people shouldn't have or that I didn't want them to have food? You took my belief that if a woman chooses to have a child, a choice you say is hers and hers alone, I believe it is her responsibility to support that child. She made the choice, she gets the costs. If she can't get the baby daddy to help, it doesn't, by default, mean the rest of us should be forced to provide her with something to fund a choice she said was none of our business. What you don't seem to get is that I don't care how many children a woman chooses to have as long as she or the other party involved in creating the child supports them. However, when she tells me to butt out of that choice then can't get the sperm donor to take care of what is his, demanding someone else she told to butt out of the choice is that last one she should expect to do for her. If you want to help her, that's your choice. If you're stupid enough to be told to butt out then accept responsibility for a choice the one making it can't afford, write her a check. Just make sure it comes out of your account.

As far as my money meaning more to me than her, damn right. She wanted me out of the up front choice, leave me out of the back end responsibility. I'm not asking her to do anything more related to MY money than she's asking me when it comes to what she does.

 

[Anathema]

So, basically, you're admitting that your position is so absurdly extreme that no candidate who ever hopes to actually get elected would ever adopt your positions.

Well, I congratulate you for being true to your position. Enjoy the political fringes where you will never have any effect on the policies, and laws of this nation.

Out at my edge of the extreme we change things with blades, bullets, and blood, not ballots. If you're not willing to kill and die for it, did you really believe in it to begin with?