A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Chuz Life]

That would mean women would lose their rights.....

Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life. They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."

Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.

If prenatal children are not constitutionally persons, then those opposed to our fetal homicide laws should have no problem overturning the MURDER convictions of those who are presently convicted.

A murder charge means a "person" was killed. Doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.

Yes.

It does.

 

[Boss]

Q: A murder charge means a "person" was killed. Doesn't it?
A: No, it doesn't.

This really says all you need to know about the level of sheer stupid we're arguing with here.

These idiots are in full denial mode. It simply does not matter about facts, definitions, biology, science... none of it matters. They are going to bow up and reject every single thing you say no matter if it's true or not. You can't have an intelligent, rational or reasoned conversation with these morons. It's impossible.

 

[Conservative65]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Again, the solution is so simple.


Set an agreed upon time that a fetus becomes a human, and if a woman gets an abortion after said time, sans medical necessity, prosecute it just the same as you would any murder.

Yeah...it's that"…agreed upon time…" that everyone seems to be getting hung up on…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you logically-challenged as well?

Well you had the opportunity to identify what she got wrong; that you've now chosen invective over evidence twice is crystal clear evidence you can't find anything she got wrong in that post -- you just don't like what she said.

You're kidding, right?

That's 3 times...

Three times what?

You're too stupid to keep up?

You're the one that think a woman should be able to make a choice with her body, tell others to butt out, and when she can't afford the choice think it's OK for her to demand those she told to butt out to pay for it. That's stupid.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Again, the solution is so simple.


Set an agreed upon time that a fetus becomes a human, and if a woman gets an abortion after said time, sans medical necessity, prosecute it just the same as you would any murder.

Yeah...it's that"…agreed upon time…" that everyone seems to be getting hung up on…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

Again, the solution is so simple.


Set an agreed upon time that a fetus becomes a human, and if a woman gets an abortion after said time, sans medical necessity, prosecute it just the same as you would any murder.

Yeah...it's that"…agreed upon time…" that everyone seems to be getting hung up on…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So all poor women choose to have children they can't afford because they think abortion is murder? Prove it.

My problem is that people like you want the rest of us and the government to butt out of her choice yet don't have a second thought about demanding that same government force the rest of us she told to butt out to pay for her choice.

She can have all the children she wants as long as SHE pays for them. Once she makes the choice, it's her responsibility not mine.

If I go out and buy a house I knowingly can't afford, is it your responsibility to make the payment if I can't?

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah...it's that"…agreed upon time…" that everyone seems to be getting hung up on…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So all poor women choose to have children they can't afford because they think abortion is murder? Prove it.

My problem is that people like you want the rest of us and the government to butt out of her choice yet don't have a second thought about demanding that same government force the rest of us she told to butt out to pay for her choice.

She can have all the children she wants as long as SHE pays for them. Once she makes the choice, it's her responsibility not mine.

If I go out and buy a house I knowingly can't afford, is it your responsibility to make the payment if I can't?

But this woman is doing what you want her to do. She putting " the life of her unborn child" above her own comfort, convenience, or even financial ability! Why are you so angry that she is now asking for your help?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So all poor women choose to have children they can't afford because they think abortion is murder? Prove it.

My problem is that people like you want the rest of us and the government to butt out of her choice yet don't have a second thought about demanding that same government force the rest of us she told to butt out to pay for her choice.

She can have all the children she wants as long as SHE pays for them. Once she makes the choice, it's her responsibility not mine.

If I go out and buy a house I knowingly can't afford, is it your responsibility to make the payment if I can't?

But this woman is doing what you want her to do. She putting " the life of her unborn child" above her own comfort, convenience, or even financial ability! Why are you so angry that she is now asking for your help?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No she isn't. I want her to pay for the choice she made. She isn't asking for help, she's refusing to pay for a choice she made. It's not a matter of what I want but a matter of what SHE chose to do. My wants don't make the decision. Her choice does.

If she make the CHOICE, she gets the costs. If she can't pay, that leave two options. Do without or get idiots like you that think being told to butt out then willing to be told to pay is a good idea. Either way, her kids are not my responsibility.

 

[Czernobog]

She can have all the children she wants as long as SHE pays for them. Once she makes the choice, it's her responsibility not mine.

So, just to be clear, the implication of this statement would be, "IF she can't afford a kid, she not only can, bit should get an abortion,"

So, you're okay with abortions for the poor?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

She can have all the children she wants as long as SHE pays for them. Once she makes the choice, it's her responsibility not mine.

So, just to be clear, the implication of this statement would be, "IF she can't afford a kid, she not only can, bit should get an abortion,"

So, you're okay with abortions for the poor?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If she makes the choice with her body, she gets the cost. Period. If she chooses to have an abortion or multiple abortions, although I disagree personally, it's legal. However, if she incurs medical issues for which she can't pay for, not my problem. It's her choice. Don't ask for my help for a choice you told me to butt out of. On the other side, if she has kids she chose to have for whatever reason and can't afford them, don't ask for my help for a choice you told me to butt out of.

What you don't seem to get is life is about choices. You think that people should be able to make choices and when they can't afford something they told others was none of their business, it's OK to demand those others that were told to butt out to be forced to pay.

If I buy a house, car, etc. I knowingly can't afford, are you willing to make the payments when I can't fund the choice I made?

 

[Boss]

I personally don't think that killing babies because you can't afford them is ethical. It doesn't have anything to do with sin.

I wonder sometimes if you people are so retarded that you don't understand how babies are made? Do you think women are going along just minding their business and a baby suddenly intrudes on their womb? You know, if that were the case, I could probably be more in favor of abortion or "choice". But most grown ups know that's not what happens. The woman makes a choice... she has sex with a male. That's a choice. She also has the choice of any number of birth control options to mitigate the possibility of pregnancy. So there's TWO choices she has... How many choices should the woman get? What if she has the baby and 6-weeks in, she decides it's not for her? Should she have the choice to kill it then? It can't survive on it's own, it can't object to being killed... why is it any different?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So all poor women choose to have children they can't afford because they think abortion is murder? Prove it.

My problem is that people like you want the rest of us and the government to butt out of her choice yet don't have a second thought about demanding that same government force the rest of us she told to butt out to pay for her choice.

She can have all the children she wants as long as SHE pays for them. Once she makes the choice, it's her responsibility not mine.

If I go out and buy a house I knowingly can't afford, is it your responsibility to make the payment if I can't?

But this woman is doing what you want her to do. She putting " the life of her unborn child" above her own comfort, convenience, or even financial ability! Why are you so angry that she is now asking for your help?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Because you absolute dumb fuck there is a third option. Take precautions so that you don't get pregnant to begin with unless you both want the child and can afford the child

 

[Conservative65]

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So all poor women choose to have children they can't afford because they think abortion is murder? Prove it.

My problem is that people like you want the rest of us and the government to butt out of her choice yet don't have a second thought about demanding that same government force the rest of us she told to butt out to pay for her choice.

She can have all the children she wants as long as SHE pays for them. Once she makes the choice, it's her responsibility not mine.

If I go out and buy a house I knowingly can't afford, is it your responsibility to make the payment if I can't?

But this woman is doing what you want her to do. She putting " the life of her unborn child" above her own comfort, convenience, or even financial ability! Why are you so angry that she is now asking for your help?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Because you absolute dumb fuck there is a third option. Take precautions so that you don't get pregnant to begin with unless you both want the child and can afford the child

There's still a problem. People like Czernobog want the rest of us to pay for those types of things on her behalf and for a choice SHE made to spread her legs. It still goes back to people like him thinking the one making the choice should have the absolute choice but not expecting them to take absolute responsibility for all things associated with that choice.

 

[Andylusion]

Again, the solution is so simple.


Set an agreed upon time that a fetus becomes a human, and if a woman gets an abortion after said time, sans medical necessity, prosecute it just the same as you would any murder.

Yeah...it's that"…agreed upon time…" that everyone seems to be getting hung up on…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I am going to start a pro-life campaign to end all abortion, and push legislation to end gay-marriage and ton of other right-wing causes.

I don't have much money, so before doing any of that, I'm going to push laws to force *YOU* to fund my campaign.

um... do you have any problem with that? No, you good? No issues with my plan? Force you to pay for things you disagree with? Jefferson anyone?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical" -Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

So.... we disagree with murdering a child. We will always disagree with murdering a child. But I don't flip out about it, because this is a pagan dominated country, and the pagans love murder and blood of the innocent. I get it.

However..... trying to force me to pay for your child murdering policies? Can I force you to pay for my policies that you abhor?

See the problem? You want to murder children, fine. It's your laws, and in your mind murdering innocent children is legal. Ok. But you pay for it yourself. Not with my money. And I will vote for any man who refuses to allow my money to be used to murder for you. Period.

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah...it's that"…agreed upon time…" that everyone seems to be getting hung up on…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I am going to start a pro-life campaign to end all abortion, and push legislation to end gay-marriage and ton of other right-wing causes.

I don't have much money, so before doing any of that, I'm going to push laws to force *YOU* to fund my campaign.

um... do you have any problem with that? No, you good? No issues with my plan? Force you to pay for things you disagree with? Jefferson anyone?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical" -Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

So.... we disagree with murdering a child. We will always disagree with murdering a child. But I don't flip out about it, because this is a pagan dominated country, and the pagans love murder and blood of the innocent. I get it.

However..... trying to force me to pay for your child murdering policies? Can I force you to pay for my policies that you abhor?

See the problem? You want to murder children, fine. It's your laws, and in your mind murdering innocent children is legal. Ok. But you pay for it yourself. Not with my money. And I will vote for any man who refuses to allow my money to be used to murder for you. Period.

Someone is forcing you to pay for abortions? No? Then you're okay with us pagans getting abortions, so long as we don't ask you to pay for them, right? Glad we're on the same page.

 

[Conservative65]

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I am going to start a pro-life campaign to end all abortion, and push legislation to end gay-marriage and ton of other right-wing causes.

I don't have much money, so before doing any of that, I'm going to push laws to force *YOU* to fund my campaign.

um... do you have any problem with that? No, you good? No issues with my plan? Force you to pay for things you disagree with? Jefferson anyone?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical" -Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

So.... we disagree with murdering a child. We will always disagree with murdering a child. But I don't flip out about it, because this is a pagan dominated country, and the pagans love murder and blood of the innocent. I get it.

However..... trying to force me to pay for your child murdering policies? Can I force you to pay for my policies that you abhor?

See the problem? You want to murder children, fine. It's your laws, and in your mind murdering innocent children is legal. Ok. But you pay for it yourself. Not with my money. And I will vote for any man who refuses to allow my money to be used to murder for you. Period.

Someone is forcing you to pay for abortions? No? Then you're okay with us pagans getting abortions, so long as we don't ask you to pay for them, right? Glad we're on the same page.

You do know there is something that could be considered a self inflicted, retroactive abortion. Look into it.

 

[Conservative65]

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I am going to start a pro-life campaign to end all abortion, and push legislation to end gay-marriage and ton of other right-wing causes.

I don't have much money, so before doing any of that, I'm going to push laws to force *YOU* to fund my campaign.

um... do you have any problem with that? No, you good? No issues with my plan? Force you to pay for things you disagree with? Jefferson anyone?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical" -Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

So.... we disagree with murdering a child. We will always disagree with murdering a child. But I don't flip out about it, because this is a pagan dominated country, and the pagans love murder and blood of the innocent. I get it.

However..... trying to force me to pay for your child murdering policies? Can I force you to pay for my policies that you abhor?

See the problem? You want to murder children, fine. It's your laws, and in your mind murdering innocent children is legal. Ok. But you pay for it yourself. Not with my money. And I will vote for any man who refuses to allow my money to be used to murder for you. Period.

Someone is forcing you to pay for abortions? No? Then you're okay with us pagans getting abortions, so long as we don't ask you to pay for them, right? Glad we're on the same page.

In 28 States, the GAO found over 1000 plans sold through the Obamacare exchanges included abortion coverage. If you know how insurance works and since Obamacare is a mandate, that means those participating in those plans are being forced to pay for abortions in order to have something the federal government says they have to buy. If the premiums for any of those plans are funded by taxpayer funded subsidies, those required to pay the taxes are forced to fund abortions. You want to make it out as something it isn't. Glad you were informed and can no longer claim ignorance.

 

[Andylusion]

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I am going to start a pro-life campaign to end all abortion, and push legislation to end gay-marriage and ton of other right-wing causes.

I don't have much money, so before doing any of that, I'm going to push laws to force *YOU* to fund my campaign.

um... do you have any problem with that? No, you good? No issues with my plan? Force you to pay for things you disagree with? Jefferson anyone?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical" -Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

So.... we disagree with murdering a child. We will always disagree with murdering a child. But I don't flip out about it, because this is a pagan dominated country, and the pagans love murder and blood of the innocent. I get it.

However..... trying to force me to pay for your child murdering policies? Can I force you to pay for my policies that you abhor?

See the problem? You want to murder children, fine. It's your laws, and in your mind murdering innocent children is legal. Ok. But you pay for it yourself. Not with my money. And I will vote for any man who refuses to allow my money to be used to murder for you. Period.

Someone is forcing you to pay for abortions? No? Then you're okay with us pagans getting abortions, so long as we don't ask you to pay for them, right? Glad we're on the same page.

Yes, someone is forcing me to pay for abortions. Right now I am. So apparently we are not on the same page.

No, I am never "ok" with blood lusting pagans murdering innocent children. But I'm not going to go crazy over it. I will support anyone who proposes we ban abortions. But I'm not going to scream and yell at pagans at some picket somewhere. That's ridiculous.

However it takes an extremely sick and disgusting sub-human, to say they are "ok" with children being murdered. If that's you, that's...... really sad. But I have low expectations of pagans.

No, I am not OK with child murdering. Never will be. I just don't believe in getting all fruity about it. Pagans are pagans. Blood thirsty murderers is the norm today.

 

[Mertex]

No, the comparison is the law changed. It changed for blacks and it changed for women.

And it will change for the unborn.

That would mean women would lose their rights.....and I don't believe that is ever going to happen....not with a Democratic President....and I doubt that Trumpf would go that route....he was pro-choice once, and only changed to placate the gullible that will vote for him.

No one has the right to violate the rights of a child.

A fetus is not a child. Therein lies the problem.....you don't know the difference between a child and a fetus.

Your denials have already been defeated by common dictionary definitions and even more so by our fetal homicide laws. So, how about shutting your pie hole until you have a clue about what reality is.

All you have is semantics, idiot.....the law is the law, and idiots like you have been trying to change it for over 40 years and have not been successful.....so maybe it is time for you and your ilk to shut your pie holes. Americans do not want to go back to prehistoric times.

 

[Mertex]

That would mean women would lose their rights.....

Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life. They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."

Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.

If prenatal children are not constitutionally persons, then those opposed to our fetal homicide laws should have no problem overturning the MURDER convictions of those who are presently convicted.

A murder charge means a "person" was killed. Doesn't it?

No, idiot.....a potential person was killed. You even fail at semantics, although that is all you really have.