How Much Prison Time Should You Get For Having An Abortion?

Whether a 2 week old fetus is a separate and distinct human being can be debated.

But the woman that that fetus is in- that is certainly a distinct human being- without any debate- and you want to mandate what every woman can do with her body.


"Whether a 2 week old fetus is a separate and distinct human being can be debated."

Of course it can't.
Seems government schooling never taught you biology.


There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the new human being is simply part of the mother's body.



1. Start with DNA: An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.




1. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.




1. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.




1. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."

2. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.


Enough to eviscerate the Leftist baby-killers?

Apparently you never took biology.



Are you denying any of the facts I presented???

These:

1. Start with DNA: An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.




1. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.




1. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.




1. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."

2. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.



Biology is one of the areas of my expertise....as is morality.


Seems you have no such areas.

Does your religious freak know what a zygote is? Fetuses do not live in a dead womb (or Mother). If the fetus dies the mother will still live and the fetus will get aborted as quickly as possible or the Mother's life will be at risk.

Does your religious freak know what intersex is and how frequent it happens. What does he say about intersex in his book?

Some biology of sexuality.
Sherfey MJ.
Abstract
PIP:
2 theories long held regarding female sexuality have been the Eve-out-of-Adam's Rib theory and Freud's well-known clitoral-vaginal transfer theory. Because all embryos, male and female, start life by developing a combined clitoral-penile tubercle, it seemed that all fetuses started as male and by the 3rd month the females gave up trying to grow a penis, the clitoris being the remains. Geneticists have discovered that all human embryos start life as females, as do all embryos of mammals. About the 2nd month the fetal tests elaborate enough androgens to offset the maternal estrogens and maleness develops. The discussion of clitoral vs. vaginal orgasm is meaningless because orgasm is the result of muscular stretching and fluid produced by the veins filling the fatty tissues. The process is exactly the same in males and females. From a scientific viewpoint there is only 1 kind of orgasm, the ''myovascular orgasm.'' In primates which have no foreplay, the sexual organs enlarge to the point that the blood vessels are quite distended. This especially is seen in some of the primates. Man is more like the smaller monkeys and other mammals in that foreplay is required for orgasm.

Some biology of sexuality. - PubMed - NCBI
----------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is that once an egg is fertilized, the woman carrying the fertilized egg does not contribute a significant amount of DNA to the fetus. But she could still affect how that DNA is eventually used. This can affect the child for the rest of his or her life. And the effects could even be passed down to grandchildren!
Understanding Genetics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just can't stand the lies that you sprout from the crazy religious zealots.



Life begins at conception.


Shettles, Landrum, M.D., Rorvik, David, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, page 36, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983

“… Conception confers life and makes you one of a kind. Unless you have an identical twin, there is virtually no chance, in the natural course of things, that there will be “another you” – not even if mankind were to persist for billions of years.”



Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”


“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.



"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland




Now....what part of that is beyond you?


Whether a 2 week old fetus is a separate and distinct human being can be debated.

But the woman that that fetus is in- that is certainly a distinct human being- without any debate- and you want to mandate what every woman can do with her body.


"Whether a 2 week old fetus is a separate and distinct human being can be debated."

Of course it can't.
Seems government schooling never taught you biology.


There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the new human being is simply part of the mother's body.



1. Start with DNA: An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.




1. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.




1. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.




1. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."

2. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.


Enough to eviscerate the Leftist baby-killers?

Apparently you never took biology.



Are you denying any of the facts I presented???

These:

1. Start with DNA: An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.




1. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.




1. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.




1. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."

2. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.



Biology is one of the areas of my expertise....as is morality.


Seems you have no such areas.

Does your religious freak know what a zygote is? Fetuses do not live in a dead womb (or Mother). If the fetus dies the mother will still live and the fetus will get aborted as quickly as possible or the Mother's life will be at risk.

Does your religious freak know what intersex is and how frequent it happens. What does he say about intersex in his book?

Some biology of sexuality.
Sherfey MJ.
Abstract
PIP:
2 theories long held regarding female sexuality have been the Eve-out-of-Adam's Rib theory and Freud's well-known clitoral-vaginal transfer theory. Because all embryos, male and female, start life by developing a combined clitoral-penile tubercle, it seemed that all fetuses started as male and by the 3rd month the females gave up trying to grow a penis, the clitoris being the remains. Geneticists have discovered that all human embryos start life as females, as do all embryos of mammals. About the 2nd month the fetal tests elaborate enough androgens to offset the maternal estrogens and maleness develops. The discussion of clitoral vs. vaginal orgasm is meaningless because orgasm is the result of muscular stretching and fluid produced by the veins filling the fatty tissues. The process is exactly the same in males and females. From a scientific viewpoint there is only 1 kind of orgasm, the ''myovascular orgasm.'' In primates which have no foreplay, the sexual organs enlarge to the point that the blood vessels are quite distended. This especially is seen in some of the primates. Man is more like the smaller monkeys and other mammals in that foreplay is required for orgasm.

Some biology of sexuality. - PubMed - NCBI
----------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is that once an egg is fertilized, the woman carrying the fertilized egg does not contribute a significant amount of DNA to the fetus. But she could still affect how that DNA is eventually used. This can affect the child for the rest of his or her life. And the effects could even be passed down to grandchildren!
Understanding Genetics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just can't stand the lies that you sprout from the crazy religious zealots.



Life begins at conception.


Shettles, Landrum, M.D., Rorvik, David, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, page 36, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983

“… Conception confers life and makes you one of a kind. Unless you have an identical twin, there is virtually no chance, in the natural course of things, that there will be “another you” – not even if mankind were to persist for billions of years.”



Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”


“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.



"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland




Now....what part of that is beyond you?

Please reread my post, and since you have no comprehension of biology, microbiology or fetal development , let me ask you what I asked Vastator:

Since you are anti abortion and do you believe in helping infants if in need of food, healthcare, or a roof over their head, or even a clean environment (I am talking about Hud) conducive for them to become healthy and happy productive well educated adults??
 
Now THAT!!! Is a fucking holocaust!
Give the name of one of the victims.



Sooo.....you're looking for dates????
No, I'm asking for the name of one of the victims.


Why?

Are you denying that there were the abortions???
If there are all these deaths you must have the name of a victim. Please share.


Why?
 
Give the name of one of the victims.



Sooo.....you're looking for dates????
No, I'm asking for the name of one of the victims.


Why?

Are you denying that there were the abortions???
If there are all these deaths you must have the name of a victim. Please share.


Why?
You don't even have the name of a single victim?
 
It is an perfectly good analogy - Unless you know someone who is starting babies in a test tube and transferring to an incubator with feeding tubes and such.
Actually it’s a horrible analogy that doesnt work; no matter how you twist it. Especially in this modern age of genetics. It actually fails harder than the “is an acorn a tree?” question that so many baby killers thought was clever. And that’s saying something...

So IOW, your contention is that a fetus doesn't need a host to live?
The pro-life group, DrLove, is not a bunch of deep or consistent thinkers.

Yes - I have noticed that. :)

c1ba762b3d56d1177bb56c726eef0002.jpg


You've noticed nothing but delusions and propaganda from media.

Yet realistic and lives in the real world, you are the one in fantasy land.
 
Sooo.....you're looking for dates????
No, I'm asking for the name of one of the victims.


Why?

Are you denying that there were the abortions???
If there are all these deaths you must have the name of a victim. Please share.


Why?
You don't even have the name of a single victim?

Just a no.
 
Last edited:
Why does the Right to Life crowd object to contraception, and consider it a form of abortion? Why do they refuse to allow or support age appropriate human sexuality as part of a comprehensive health curriculum in the public schools; why are they opposed to explaining how pregnancy can be prevented, and the costs in time and money to raise a child for the required 18 years?
All total twisting of the truth as expected. I don't object to contraception, liar. I don't object to learning how pregnancy can be prevented, liar. The only thing I DO oppose in teaching young people about sexual reproduction is that your sick ass wants to teach them about faggots.
 
Jailed for ending a pregnancy: how prosecutors get inventive on abortion

Once Roe v Wade is ultimately struck down as Trump predicted -- since Trump promised to appoint judges who will overturn the 1973 SC decision; how much time should women and abortionists get for having an abortion?? If you knowingly drive a woman to get an abortion, should you also be charged?

Now I highly doubt we are going to insist that women get the death penalty for having an illegal abortion, but they have to be punished somehow -- Also, would killing an abortion doctor then be considered justified?

Judgment for violent crimes vary at the State level. Each State would establish its own mandatory minimum.

Of course, if a woman comes into the hospital and says she's just been raped, then, by all means, give her a shot.
 
Sorry bout that,


1. The total decay of Western Society comes from this one topic, the senseless murdering of the babies.
2. It makes life cheap.
3. For it to be kept legal, murder should be legal too.
4. Looking around in certain cities, you would see that mostly liberal run cities, your life is shit, you may not see the morning, and if you get shot and killed no one will care or even make notice.
5. They will quickly cremate your carcass and be ready for the next carcass to arrive.
6. So be aware murder is already legal in certain cities, chicago being named.
7. Yeah abortion by the thousands and murders trying to catch up.
8. The truth is staring you right in your dumb face.
9. You are too damn stupid to see it looking at you.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
A life in a womb is not a petri dish. We do know your tactics in referring to a child as petri dish in order to vanquish your conscience so you will not have to think about the morbid atrocities of abortion.

A fetus is like a virus, it needs a host to live.
Quoted for posterity. Lest we forget...

It is an perfectly good analogy - Unless you know someone who is starting babies in a test tube and transferring to an incubator with feeding tubes and such.


No, its an analogy for some to ease their conscience. If someone intentionally hits a pregnant mother and kills the baby, it's murder.
Yes if someone hits a pregnant mother and kills the fetus, there are grieving family and friends. Where are all the grieving family and friends for these abortions?

By that logic, it would be fine to kill someone.....as long as they didn't have any family or friends.
 
That whole “responsibility” thing really pisses you selfish abortionists off doesn’t it?

So the message to the single Mom with an unplanned pregnancy because you cut funding to Planned Parenthood is:

It is your RESPONSIBILITY to have that baby - But not mine to feed it with government cheese even though you are working two jobs and daycare eats up half your income.

Check

No. Why is she behaving irresponsibly by having children that she can't afford?

I think the question is , "who is getting abortions and why?"
 
That whole “responsibility” thing really pisses you selfish abortionists off doesn’t it?

So the message to the single Mom with an unplanned pregnancy because you cut funding to Planned Parenthood is:

It is your RESPONSIBILITY to have that baby - But not mine to feed it with government cheese even though you are working two jobs and daycare eats up half your income.

Check

No. Why is she behaving irresponsibly by having children that she can't afford?

I think the question is , "who is getting abortions and why?"
Murderers. Why? To kill people whose death would improve their own lives...
 
It is an perfectly good analogy - Unless you know someone who is starting babies in a test tube and transferring to an incubator with feeding tubes and such.
Actually it’s a horrible analogy that doesnt work; no matter how you twist it. Especially in this modern age of genetics. It actually fails harder than the “is an acorn a tree?” question that so many baby killers thought was clever. And that’s saying something...

So IOW, your contention is that a fetus doesn't need a host to live?
Your post is just another failed attempt at wordsmithing. You thought “host” was clever as well, the first time you heard it I see... So sad... Try again.

Its just another attempt for them to try to ease their conscience by calling a human life a blob of cells etc.

It's a baby that the mother doesn't want to be responsible for and take care of. With an abortion, there should be mandatory sterilization. (in most cases)

Conservatives do really love the idea of forced sterilizations- and controlling women's bodies.
 
ok, how many people, who abstained from sex, have had a baby?

Okay, how many people want to stop having sex?
Oh wait, there is you and that's about it ;)
So because someone wants to have sex it's ok for them to collect welfare for 18 years because they had a kid.
So because someone wants to have sex it's ok to murder their unborn baby.
NOT!
Want has nothing to do with it. I want to be President. I want to be a multi-millionaire. Want is shit. What is, is.
Don't have sex and you won't have that problem. Period.

I wouldn't want to be president - no way no how
I DO want to have sex - it is healthy and abstaining for 40 years is NOT
Most people are more like me than they are like you
And abortion in the first 120 days isn't murder
But you would like to make it so
Hence I have a new logo for your movement

clay_bennett_gop_hanger.jpeg
Producing a fetus that has to be aborted is not healthy.
 
Actually it’s a horrible analogy that doesnt work; no matter how you twist it. Especially in this modern age of genetics. It actually fails harder than the “is an acorn a tree?” question that so many baby killers thought was clever. And that’s saying something...

So IOW, your contention is that a fetus doesn't need a host to live?
Your post is just another failed attempt at wordsmithing. You thought “host” was clever as well, the first time you heard it I see... So sad... Try again.

Its just another attempt for them to try to ease their conscience by calling a human life a blob of cells etc.

It's a baby that the mother doesn't want to be responsible for and take care of. With an abortion, there should be mandatory sterilization. (in most cases)

Conservatives do really love the idea of forced sterilizations- and controlling women's bodies.


".. and controlling women's bodies."

How many times must the biology be explained to you?

It is a separate and distinct human being that you demand the right to kill.

Leftists have quite a history of doing that....100 million in the last century.


Soooo....we've determined that you know neither science nor history...
...you must be a Liberal, huh?
 
So IOW, your contention is that a fetus doesn't need a host to live?
Your post is just another failed attempt at wordsmithing. You thought “host” was clever as well, the first time you heard it I see... So sad... Try again.

Its just another attempt for them to try to ease their conscience by calling a human life a blob of cells etc.

It's a baby that the mother doesn't want to be responsible for and take care of. With an abortion, there should be mandatory sterilization. (in most cases)

Conservatives do really love the idea of forced sterilizations- and controlling women's bodies.


".. and controlling women's bodies."

How many times must the biology be explained to you??

How many times must I have to respond to your usual idiocy.

Conservatives do really love the idea of forced sterilizations- and controlling women's bodies.
 
I think it is pretty straight forward

If you believe that abortion is murder- then you should believe that every woman who has had an abortion- and every doctor who has performed an abortion- should be charged, convicted and sentenced to murder the same as anyone who kills a 5 year old child- either execution or life in prison.

And that is what the women and doctors of America can look forward to under the future Conservative regimes.
 
Your post is just another failed attempt at wordsmithing. You thought “host” was clever as well, the first time you heard it I see... So sad... Try again.

Its just another attempt for them to try to ease their conscience by calling a human life a blob of cells etc.

It's a baby that the mother doesn't want to be responsible for and take care of. With an abortion, there should be mandatory sterilization. (in most cases)

Conservatives do really love the idea of forced sterilizations- and controlling women's bodies.


".. and controlling women's bodies."

How many times must the biology be explained to you??

How many times must I have to respond to your usual idiocy.

Conservatives do really love the idea of forced sterilizations- and controlling women's bodies.




You must be a government school grad, huh?


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

  1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
  2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
  3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
  4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
  5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
  6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
  7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
  8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
  9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

  1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

  1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
  2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
  3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?
 
Your post is just another failed attempt at wordsmithing. You thought “host” was clever as well, the first time you heard it I see... So sad... Try again.

Its just another attempt for them to try to ease their conscience by calling a human life a blob of cells etc.

It's a baby that the mother doesn't want to be responsible for and take care of. With an abortion, there should be mandatory sterilization. (in most cases)

Conservatives do really love the idea of forced sterilizations- and controlling women's bodies.


".. and controlling women's bodies."

How many times must the biology be explained to you??

How many times must I have to respond to your usual idiocy.

Conservatives do really love the idea of forced sterilizations- and controlling women's bodies.


I love smashing these verbal custard pies in your ugly kisser...


Did you actually write this?????

"Conservatives do really love the idea of forced sterilizations...."


Only Progressives, Liberals, have a history of doing this: watch me prove it.


1. The affinity of Nazis and American Progressives is largely hidden from the public....for obvious reasons.
But any research clearly turns up the close and constant associations of the two.


Now for some background on the subject of forced sterilization....notice the documentation provided:


2. "As one authority has noted, this 'was the common denominator of all forms of Nazi racism.'

Eugenics was synonymous with 'race hygiene,' and its most fundamental program was to purify the 'race' of 'low grade' and 'degenerate' groups. Thus, American and European eugenicists created a generic racism and sexism - the genetically inferior.

Not surprisingly, the victims always turned out to be the traditional victims of racism - Jews, Blacks, women, and the poor."
Giesela Bock, 'Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany,'Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,Vol. 8, no. 3, Spring 1983. Reprinted in Renate Bridenthal et. al.,When Biology Became Destiny:Women in Weimar and Nazi Germany(New York, 1984), p. 276.


a. American and German eugenicists were particularly close in ideology.Germans and Americans regularly translated each other's literature, and the German movement was closely followed in the American eugenics press.

In June of 1936, Heidelberg University planned a celebration in honor of its 550th anniversary. Harry Laughlin, the author of Eugenical Sterilization in the United States,was offered an honorary degree in recognition of his services to eugenics.

Laughlin wrote that he would be glad to accept 'not only as a personal honor, but asevidence of the common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics as research in and the practical application of those fundamental biological and social principles which determine racial endowments and the racial health... of future generations.'
Randy Bird and Garland Allen, 'Archival Sources in the History of Eugenics,'Journal of the History of Biology,'Vol. 14, no. 2, Fall 1981, p. 351.



c. The most popular German eugenics text, Menschliche Erblichkeitslehre,was translated into English and widely read in the United States. Many American eugenics texts, including Madison Grant's Classic, The Passing of the Great Race, were translated into German.

The above based on chapter five of Dr. Mehler's dissertation, 'A History of the American Eugenics Society,' (University of Illinois, 1988) which can be obtained from University Microfilm (Ann Arbor, MI).Eliminating the Inferior American and Nazi Sterilization Programs Institute for the Study of Academic Racism - Ferris State University



3. Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his“The Case for Sterilization.” (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)

German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.




" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48





Wasn't that fun, you dunce????
 
Sorry bout that,


1. Animals kill there own.
2. They are wild animals.
3. Liberals are animals too.
4. Not only will they kill you walking around on two feet.
5. They will reach up in a woman's womb and slice you up.
6. There is no safe place a liberal won't or can't go to murder you.
7. If we had people on the moon, or living in space, the liberals will try and murder you there.
8. Don't think I'm making this up, I use only facts.
9. Keep your eyes open, and powder dry.
10. Liberals knowing that the Supreme Courts bench sitters is about to change makes them, *TRIGGER*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
Why does the Right to Life crowd object to contraception, and consider it a form of abortion? Why do they refuse to allow or support age appropriate human sexuality as part of a comprehensive health curriculum in the public schools; why are they opposed to explaining how pregnancy can be prevented, and the costs in time and money to raise a child for the required 18 years?

All total twisting of the truth as expected. I don't object to contraception, liar. I don't object to learning how pregnancy can be prevented, liar. The only thing I DO oppose in teaching young people about sexual reproduction is that your sick ass wants to teach them about faggots.

I don't care what you object to or support, the efforts by the RTL set oppose the teaching of means to prevent pregnancy and STD's. They are also on record allowing employers and some health insurers to deny providing contraceptives as part of the contract.
 

Forum List

Back
Top