A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Mertex]

The DEBATE is over whether or not this SHOULD be the case. You've offered nothing to demonstrate that a human fetus is not a living human being in the fetal stage of development. I have made the point, as a human being, the fetus (at some point) deserves constitutional protection of life... at the very minimum.

We shouldn't even be discussing this age old issue....it has been settled, and only regressives are fighting to turn back the clock. And apparently you and your ilk have not been able to convince the majority that a fetus is a "person", even though your party doesn't stop at clever ways to try and make a fertilized egg a person, you still fail. And, no, a fertilized egg at any stage of development is not a more valuable entity than a woman....end of story.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Post a link......your credibility here is zero....so you can say the sky is purple all day long, but unless you can provide something to back you up, you're just regurgitating pap from the conservative mill.

The only time that it is allowed is when the woman's life is at risk, or in case of rape or incest. Now, please tell me you don't want a woman who is at risk to be able to choose an abortion, because if you do, then don't call yourself "pro-life" because by definition you are condemning the woman to death.


Since 1977, federal law has banned the use of any federal funds for abortion, unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or if it is determined to endanger the woman’s life.
Coverage for Abortion Services in Medicaid, Marketplace Plans and Private Plans

 

[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, it doesn't.

Yes.

It does.

Prove it.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Except you're on the wrong side of the conversation.....you belong with sheer stupid, here.

 

[Mertex]

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.

No idiot. You're the one that wants to force the woman to have the child (even if she can't afford to raise it), but then bow out when it comes to feeding it and raising it. You're on the wrong side of the argument and haven't fully recognized it yet.....keep trying.

 

[Mertex]

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

Because they are a bunch of hypocrites. Being anti-abortion doesn't cost them anything.....providing support for the needy costs them a few pennies out of their tax money and they would rather that all of their tax money go toward corporation owners (so they can buy that 3rd vacation home) or farmers, so that they don't have to farm that 300 extra acres that they weren't going to farm anyway, because one day some of that money is going to trickle down to them. Reagan told them and they still hold on to that dream.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The DEBATE is over whether or not this SHOULD be the case. You've offered nothing to demonstrate that a human fetus is not a living human being in the fetal stage of development. I have made the point, as a human being, the fetus (at some point) deserves constitutional protection of life... at the very minimum.

We shouldn't even be discussing this age old issue....it has been settled, and only regressives are fighting to turn back the clock. And apparently you and your ilk have not been able to convince the majority that a fetus is a "person", even though your party doesn't stop at clever ways to try and make a fertilized egg a person, you still fail. And, no, a fertilized egg at any stage of development is not a more valuable entity than a woman....end of story.

Gun rights have been decided for years as well dear. And your right , neither of these is going to change. If Ted Cruz could nominate an entire Court abortion would not be made illegal, and if Clinton could nominate an entire court gun ownership would not be made illegal, thus proving that these two issues are PURE BULLSHIT political fodder used by those who wish to control us as scare tactics to get morons to elect them.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

Because they are a bunch of hypocrites. Being anti-abortion doesn't cost them anything.....providing support for the needy costs them a few pennies out of their tax money and they would rather that all of their tax money go toward corporation owners (so they can buy that 3rd vacation home) or farmers, so that they don't have to farm that 300 extra acres that they weren't going to farm anyway, because one day some of that money is going to trickle down to them. Reagan told them and they still hold on to that dream.

LOL welfare is WAY more than a few pennies. That's pretty dishonest.

 

[Mertex]

The DEBATE is over whether or not this SHOULD be the case. You've offered nothing to demonstrate that a human fetus is not a living human being in the fetal stage of development. I have made the point, as a human being, the fetus (at some point) deserves constitutional protection of life... at the very minimum.

We shouldn't even be discussing this age old issue....it has been settled, and only regressives are fighting to turn back the clock. And apparently you and your ilk have not been able to convince the majority that a fetus is a "person", even though your party doesn't stop at clever ways to try and make a fertilized egg a person, you still fail. And, no, a fertilized egg at any stage of development is not a more valuable entity than a woman....end of story.

Gun rights have been decided for years as well dear. And your right , neither of these is going to change. If Ted Cruz could nominate an entire Court abortion would not be made illegal, and if Clinton could nominate an entire court gun ownership would not be made illegal, thus proving that these two issues are PURE BULLSHIT political fodder used by those who wish to control us as scare tactics to get morons to elect them.

Except that nobody is trying to do away with gun rights. Regulation is what the Constitution demanded and somehow conservatives love to ignore that part of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody should own an AR15.....especially one who is on a no-fly list because of suspicion, but regressive gun idolizers think that every suggestion toward gun safety is meant to take their precious guns away, so they would rather continue to see the carnage than to be reasonable.

"A well regulated Militia,

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The DEBATE is over whether or not this SHOULD be the case. You've offered nothing to demonstrate that a human fetus is not a living human being in the fetal stage of development. I have made the point, as a human being, the fetus (at some point) deserves constitutional protection of life... at the very minimum.

We shouldn't even be discussing this age old issue....it has been settled, and only regressives are fighting to turn back the clock. And apparently you and your ilk have not been able to convince the majority that a fetus is a "person", even though your party doesn't stop at clever ways to try and make a fertilized egg a person, you still fail. And, no, a fertilized egg at any stage of development is not a more valuable entity than a woman....end of story.

Gun rights have been decided for years as well dear. And your right , neither of these is going to change. If Ted Cruz could nominate an entire Court abortion would not be made illegal, and if Clinton could nominate an entire court gun ownership would not be made illegal, thus proving that these two issues are PURE BULLSHIT political fodder used by those who wish to control us as scare tactics to get morons to elect them.

Except that nobody is trying to do away with gun rights. Regulation is what the Constitution demanded and somehow conservatives love to ignore that part of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody should own an AR15.....especially one who is on a no-fly list because of suspicion, but regressive gun idolizers think that every suggestion toward gun safety is meant to take their precious guns away, so they would rather continue to see the carnage than to be reasonable.

"A well regulated Militia,

It's quite obvious that you are idiot when it comes go gun control so I won't even bother except to say that claiming no one wants to do away gun rights is all anyone needs to see you write to know that you are dishonest. OF COURSE there are people who want to do away with gun rights. You're one of them.

In fact, in your quoted statement, not only did you advocate doing away with portions of the 2nd Amendment, you also advocated doing away with portions of the 4th Amendment. Jesus Christ cat lady, get a grip.

 

[JBond]

trump said there should be some form of punishment for women who have abortions, but then again, he may have switched that to a "suggestion" along with just about everything else he gets called on.

The VOR is a lying sack of shit. Must be a liberal.

Back to reality. Trump was asked if a crime was committed should the person that committed the crime face a penalty. He said yes, as any rational person would.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

trump said there should be some form of punishment for women who have abortions, but then again, he may have switched that to a "suggestion" along with just about everything else he gets called on.

The VOR is a lying sack of shit. Must be a liberal.

Back to reality. Trump was asked if a crime was committed should the person that committed the crime face a penalty. He said yes, as any rational person would.

Correct, he fell for a trap that a seasoned politician would have seen coming a mile away.

You notice he still has not been asked if he thinks abortion should be made illegal. There is a reason for that.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

No idiot. You're the one that wants to force the woman to have the child (even if she can't afford to raise it), but then bow out when it comes to feeding it and raising it. You're on the wrong side of the argument and haven't fully recognized it yet.....keep trying.

So, if a mother (and/or father) of a 3 month old just "can't afford it," it's okay for her to kill the young human unless you hand over your wallet on demand? Is that the world you live in?

Typical liberal who is literally incapable of perceiving anything outside the liberal dogma. At least be honest enough to stop pretending you value life.

 

[JBond]

Regarding abortion, here is a simple concept that rational people should be able to agree with.

Abortion should be illegal at any point the developing child can feel pain.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Prove it.

The last time we were so arrogant as to determine whether or not a living, breathing, human being was a "person".... we ended up with the 3/5th compromise.

Are you saying you want us to act like that again?

 

[Boss]

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.

Well but, we're NOT going to shut our pie holes. We are going to continue to push for legal protections of the constitutional rights for the unborn. We already given them property rights.. if you die, you can leave your estate to your unborn child. We protect their right to life in cases of violence... Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman he can be charged with two counts of manslaughter. So the unborn is definitely a "person" in these cases. It's simply a matter of time before they have FULL protection.

What we have to do is educate you knuckledraggers about ethics and biology. When we finally drag you into the 21st century, maybe you won't be so determined to kill innocent human beings like a bunch of goddamn barbarians anymore? Perhaps we use your own stupidity against you and go with this "personhood" bullshit... just deem that your neanderthal asses aren't "persons" anymore and then we can exterminate you like the cockroaches you've become?

 

[Conservative65]

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

Because they are a bunch of hypocrites. Being anti-abortion doesn't cost them anything.....providing support for the needy costs them a few pennies out of their tax money and they would rather that all of their tax money go toward corporation owners (so they can buy that 3rd vacation home) or farmers, so that they don't have to farm that 300 extra acres that they weren't going to farm anyway, because one day some of that money is going to trickle down to them. Reagan told them and they still hold on to that dream.

Providing a few pennies in a situation where the mother chose to have a child she couldn't afford after telling the rest of us to butt out of her choice is a few pennies too much.

You sure ASSume a lot about what I think about where tax money should go.

It's clear you think tax money should be taken from someone told to butt out of a choice and go to the person telling us to butt out of it. I bet you also support tax money going to a kid for college when his/her own damn parents won't provide it.

 

[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.

No idiot. You're the one that wants to force the woman to have the child (even if she can't afford to raise it), but then bow out when it comes to feeding it and raising it. You're on the wrong side of the argument and haven't fully recognized it yet.....keep trying.

You're the one that wants the rest of us to be forced to support the choice of that woman to have a kid despite the woman telling us to butt out of the choice. Currently, if a woman has a child she can't afford, she did it by her choice. That means it's not my or anyone else's place to be forced to support her choice.

I want the woman who made a choice 9 months before to spread her legs to accept responsibility for having done so. I want the sperm donor that got her pregnant to be the one to support the child he helped create. In the end, I played no part in any of those choice yet you think those of us not involved should be responsible for it when the one making the choice can't.

 

[koshergrl]

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

Which of these are a child and which are simply animals?

So you think a person's humanity is based on what he looks like?

Wait, you're a progressive death cultist. Of course you do.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Post a link......your credibility here is zero....so you can say the sky is purple all day long, but unless you can provide something to back you up, you're just regurgitating pap from the conservative mill.

The only time that it is allowed is when the woman's life is at risk, or in case of rape or incest. Now, please tell me you don't want a woman who is at risk to be able to choose an abortion, because if you do, then don't call yourself "pro-life" because by definition you are condemning the woman to death.


Since 1977, federal law has banned the use of any federal funds for abortion, unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or if it is determined to endanger the woman’s life.
Coverage for Abortion Services in Medicaid, Marketplace Plans and Private Plans

www.dailycaller.com/2014/09/15/gao-obamacare-exchanges-funnel-taxpayer-dollars-to-plans-that-cover-abortion/

Acknowledge the facts. I don't give a shit what her reason is. It's still a choice. If you want a rape, incest, or life endanger female to have an abortion, provide it yourself. If taxpayer dollars go to it, it's one cent too much.