I was wrong... the health of the mother is not valid for an abortion.

[Bob Blaylock]

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I guess your purpose, in this thread, is to demonstrate that it is, in fact, possible to be both more murderously sociopathic, and more batshit crazy, than Coyote and [b]LIE[/b]-sistrata.

 

[Rigby5]

It is a woman’s body, life, and risks. Why on earth should a man be allowed to control that?

It's not the woman who dies, when an abortion is performed. It's an innocent child.

If this was just about the woman's body, then she'd be the one who dies from the procedure.

No, when it is about the worman's body, then in defense of her body, someone else can be killed.
Just like you can kill someone who tries to commit rape or a kidnapping.
Freedom is something one can legally kill over.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If this was just about the woman's body, then she'd be the one who dies from the procedure.

No, when it is about the worman's [sic] body, then in defense of her body, someone else can be killed.
Just like you can kill someone who tries to commit rape or a kidnapping.
Freedom is something one can legally kill over.

So, how does killing an innocent child in cold blood protect freedom?

Usually, when we speak of justifiable homicide, we're talking about killing a violent criminal, or an enemy combatant.

 

[Rigby5]

Correct the mother is the host for any child.

No I didnt know that. Just because he has an opinion or something is legal doesnt make it ok. What makes it ok or not is the opinion of the person considering the matter. If you think its OK to dishonor the mothers body by forcing her to have a child to you thats ok. I dont think thats ok.

No life has the right to exist. If it did Raid wouldnt exist nor would people hunt deer for sport.

look up zeke emmanual complete lives system,,,

she dishonored herself by getting pregnant when she didnt want a child,,
science says human life begins at conception,,,case closed

sorry I should have said human life,,,I figured you knew the context of our conversation,,,my bad

And it is wrong to claim human life begins at conception.
A blood cell is alive and has the full DNA of a person, but is not a human being.

You can't change definitions mid sentence. It's still human life.

That is because it has no capability of self awareness.
Neither does a fetus, and it is just tissue.
Only at some point does it grow a brain and later some sort of consciousness.
But we kill all the time, or else we would not have a military and weapons of war, so we have nothing against killing.

Personally I do not support what we do there either.

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

It can be nothing but human life.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I'll accept the risk.

Nonsense.
A human embryo can be defective and produce a body that does not even have a functional brain.
It will never be a human.
When there is brain death, like Terry Schievo, there is no human.
Being a human requires having a functioning brain that is capable of being self aware.

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

 

[pknopp]

look up zeke emmanual complete lives system,,,

she dishonored herself by getting pregnant when she didnt want a child,,
science says human life begins at conception,,,case closed

sorry I should have said human life,,,I figured you knew the context of our conversation,,,my bad

And it is wrong to claim human life begins at conception.
A blood cell is alive and has the full DNA of a person, but is not a human being.

You can't change definitions mid sentence. It's still human life.

That is because it has no capability of self awareness.
Neither does a fetus, and it is just tissue.
Only at some point does it grow a brain and later some sort of consciousness.
But we kill all the time, or else we would not have a military and weapons of war, so we have nothing against killing.

Personally I do not support what we do there either.

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

It can be nothing but human life.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I'll accept the risk.

Nonsense.
A human embryo can be defective and produce a body that does not even have a functional brain.
It will never be a human.
When there is brain death, like Terry Schievo, there is no human.
Being a human requires having a functioning brain that is capable of being self aware.

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

Lol.

 

[Rigby5]

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I guess your purpose, in this thread, is to demonstrate that it is, in fact, possible to be both more murderously sociopathic, and more batshit crazy, than Coyote and [B]LIE[/B]-sistrata.

All humans kill all the time, in support of more important things than mere life, like freedom, independence, etc.
If you pretend to not support killing, then you are a hypocrite if you support police, courtrooms, prisons, the military, etc.

Humans have a reproductive rate like rabbits because like rabbits, we did not live long on nature.
Now that we do live long, artificially, we have to reduce reproductive rate, anyway possible,
The planet has limited resource, and if we do not limit populations, then we destroy all life on the whole planet.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is a multitude of false ideas about life being displayed.

 

[pknopp]

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I guess your purpose, in this thread, is to demonstrate that it is, in fact, possible to be both more murderously sociopathic, and more batshit crazy, than Coyote and [B]LIE[/B]-sistrata.

All humans kill all the time, in support of more important things than mere life, like freedom, independence, etc.
If you pretend to not support killing, then you are a hypocrite if you support police, courtrooms, prisons, the military, etc.

Humans have a reproductive rate like rabbits because like rabbits, we did not live long on nature.
Now that we do live long, artificially, we have to reduce reproductive rate, anyway possible,
The planet has limited resource, and if we do not limit populations, then we destroy all life on the whole planet.

I'm all for ready access to birth control.

 

[progressive hunter]

look up zeke emmanual complete lives system,,,

she dishonored herself by getting pregnant when she didnt want a child,,
science says human life begins at conception,,,case closed

sorry I should have said human life,,,I figured you knew the context of our conversation,,,my bad

And it is wrong to claim human life begins at conception.
A blood cell is alive and has the full DNA of a person, but is not a human being.

You can't change definitions mid sentence. It's still human life.

That is because it has no capability of self awareness.
Neither does a fetus, and it is just tissue.
Only at some point does it grow a brain and later some sort of consciousness.
But we kill all the time, or else we would not have a military and weapons of war, so we have nothing against killing.

Personally I do not support what we do there either.

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

It can be nothing but human life.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I'll accept the risk.

Nonsense.
A human embryo can be defective and produce a body that does not even have a functional brain.
It will never be a human.
When there is brain death, like Terry Schievo, there is no human.
Being a human requires having a functioning brain that is capable of being self aware.

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

the lengths some go through to justify killing a child are not funny they are sad,,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Watching Schumer threaten SCOTUS judges if they rule against Roe VS Wade made me wonder about my own knowledge regarding my position... abortion OK only in case of health of money, rape or incest.
I am wrong!
Even in 1981, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said, “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”

But as former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino has affirmed on the record:
During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary?

But the biased MSM has never shared that with us.
Consequently since 1973 over 61,781,054 lives were destroyed.
Think about that...what baby among those 62 million could have discovered cures for cancer? Or made other fantastic contributions...all because a woman wasn't responsible enough.
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

Just consider that: 46% of all abortions were performed on women who had one or more abortions before!
Think about it... There is an excuse for first timers... but 2nd, or 3 or more previous abortions?

Planned Parenthood Turns 99 Today: Has Killed 7 Million Babies in Abortions

An embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby.’

Abortion is not ‘murder.’

No babies are ‘killed.’

And increasing the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty is not a ‘solution’ to the issue of abortion.

 

[Rigby5]

If this was just about the woman's body, then she'd be the one who dies from the procedure.

No, when it is about the worman's [sic] body, then in defense of her body, someone else can be killed.
Just like you can kill someone who tries to commit rape or a kidnapping.
Freedom is something one can legally kill over.

So, how does killing an innocent child in cold blood protect freedom?

Usually, when we speak of justifiable homicide, we're talking about killing a violent criminal, or an enemy combatant.

A child costs a huge amount of our time, energy, resource, money, emotional investment, etc.
The fetus is not yet aware, and does not care if it is born or not.
It is at least still asleep and had never been awake, so it does not care, and then neither should we.
In many ways it likely would prefer to be terminated rather than have to deal with the pain of being born, the cold air, being slapped into breathing, having to fight for survival continually, etc.
Life is not just a bed of roses.
And it is only after self awareness, curiosity, and survival instincts take over, that a child even cares about living.

Violent criminals could be as justified as police who kill them.
Police are following arbitrary rules we created about preserving our selfish material possessions, and often are unethical.

Who we call "enemy combatants" are likely more deserving of life than we are.
For example, we murdered about 3 million Vietnamese and half a million Iraqis, all of whom were totally innocent, and it was we who went to their countries and killed them without provocation or need.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, anyone who sincerely felt abortion were murder would confront the situation directly and accept the consequences. Go lie down in front of a clinic where abortions are performed, for example. Those who do not feel that sincerely will not confront the situation and will not accept the consequences of running off at the mouth.
It does not appear true that anyone is for abortion. It is clear that most of us are for education, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, maximum in care for children (such as universal healthcare), not dropping bombs on civilians, not dispensing tiny landmines, ceasing to pollute air, water, soil and, especially, minds.

You're still talking about a topic you said only women should weigh in on.

Your penis-influenced opinion is discounted and ignored based on your own standard. Begone.

It is a woman’s body, life, and risks. Why on earth should a man be allowed to control that?

because men have always defended the defenseless,,,and its not the womens body shes killing,,,

More likely because men have always felt they had a right to control a woman’s body, whether it is virginity, out of wedlock sex, or wherher or not to have a child.

And that’s what ‘abortion’ is about – control.

The authoritarian right’s desire to compel conformity and punish dissent, having little to do with ending the practice.

 

[pknopp]

If this was just about the woman's body, then she'd be the one who dies from the procedure.

No, when it is about the worman's [sic] body, then in defense of her body, someone else can be killed.
Just like you can kill someone who tries to commit rape or a kidnapping.
Freedom is something one can legally kill over.

So, how does killing an innocent child in cold blood protect freedom?

Usually, when we speak of justifiable homicide, we're talking about killing a violent criminal, or an enemy combatant.

A child costs a huge amount of our time, energy, resource, money, emotional investment, etc.
The fetus is not yet aware, and does not care if it is born or not.
It is at least still asleep and had never been awake, so it does not care, and then neither should we.
In many ways it likely would prefer to be terminated rather than have to deal with the pain of being born, the cold air, being slapped into breathing, having to fight for survival continually, etc.
Life is not just a bed of roses.

Double speak. If it's not aware it can't "in many ways prefer to be terminated".

it is only after self awareness, curiosity, and survival instincts take over, that a child even cares about living.

Violent criminals could be as justified as police who kill them.
Police are following arbitrary rules we created about preserving our selfish material possessions, and often are unethical.

Who we call "enemy combatants" are likely more deserving of life than we are.
For example, we murdered about 3 million Vietnamese and half a million Iraqis, all of whom were totally innocent, and it was we who went to their countries and killed them without provocation or need.

All true but one senseless killing doesn't justify another and I thought you told me that we had to accept the killing to stop over population?

 

[Rigby5]

And it is wrong to claim human life begins at conception.
A blood cell is alive and has the full DNA of a person, but is not a human being.

You can't change definitions mid sentence. It's still human life.

That is because it has no capability of self awareness.
Neither does a fetus, and it is just tissue.
Only at some point does it grow a brain and later some sort of consciousness.
But we kill all the time, or else we would not have a military and weapons of war, so we have nothing against killing.

Personally I do not support what we do there either.

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

It can be nothing but human life.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I'll accept the risk.

Nonsense.
A human embryo can be defective and produce a body that does not even have a functional brain.
It will never be a human.
When there is brain death, like Terry Schievo, there is no human.
Being a human requires having a functioning brain that is capable of being self aware.

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

the lengths some go through to justify killing a child are not funny they are sad,,,

If you think an unconscious unborn is somehow aware and therefore valuable, then you would have to believe in something beyond the physical consciousness, which does not exist yet.
And that would have to be something like the soul.
But if you do believe in something like that, then the body becomes even less important.
If you abort one fetus because it is less than ideal, then that soul will get a better chance in a different body.
There is no reason to attach to a body that has not even developed consciousness yet.

 

[progressive hunter]

You can't change definitions mid sentence. It's still human life.

Personally I do not support what we do there either.

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

It can be nothing but human life.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I'll accept the risk.

Nonsense.
A human embryo can be defective and produce a body that does not even have a functional brain.
It will never be a human.
When there is brain death, like Terry Schievo, there is no human.
Being a human requires having a functioning brain that is capable of being self aware.

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

the lengths some go through to justify killing a child are not funny they are sad,,,

If you think an unconscious unborn is somehow aware and therefore valuable, then you would have to believe in something beyond the physical consciousness, which does not exist yet.
And that would have to be something like the soul.
But if you do believe in something like that, then the body becomes even less important.
If you abort one fetus because it is less than ideal, then that soul will get a better chance in a different body.
There is no reason to attach to a body that has not even developed consciousness yet.

no matter your excuses its still a human life,,,

 

[Rigby5]

If this was just about the woman's body, then she'd be the one who dies from the procedure.

No, when it is about the worman's [sic] body, then in defense of her body, someone else can be killed.
Just like you can kill someone who tries to commit rape or a kidnapping.
Freedom is something one can legally kill over.

So, how does killing an innocent child in cold blood protect freedom?

Usually, when we speak of justifiable homicide, we're talking about killing a violent criminal, or an enemy combatant.

A child costs a huge amount of our time, energy, resource, money, emotional investment, etc.
The fetus is not yet aware, and does not care if it is born or not.
It is at least still asleep and had never been awake, so it does not care, and then neither should we.
In many ways it likely would prefer to be terminated rather than have to deal with the pain of being born, the cold air, being slapped into breathing, having to fight for survival continually, etc.
Life is not just a bed of roses.

Double speak. If it's not aware it can't "in many ways prefer to be terminated".

it is only after self awareness, curiosity, and survival instincts take over, that a child even cares about living.

Violent criminals could be as justified as police who kill them.
Police are following arbitrary rules we created about preserving our selfish material possessions, and often are unethical.

Who we call "enemy combatants" are likely more deserving of life than we are.
For example, we murdered about 3 million Vietnamese and half a million Iraqis, all of whom were totally innocent, and it was we who went to their countries and killed them without provocation or need.

All true but one senseless killing doesn't justify another and I thought you told me that we had to accept the killing to stop over population?

When you are comfortably sleeping and are rudely awakened, do you like it?
Of course not.
So a sleeping fetus is not going to like being born.
You can tell that because they cry.
Would then rather the long sleep known as death?
Most likely.

Yes one killing can and does justify another, depending on the circumstances.
For example, if you kill to prevent over population from causing species extinction, that is more than justified.
It is duty.

 

[Rigby5]

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

It can be nothing but human life.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I'll accept the risk.

Nonsense.
A human embryo can be defective and produce a body that does not even have a functional brain.
It will never be a human.
When there is brain death, like Terry Schievo, there is no human.
Being a human requires having a functioning brain that is capable of being self aware.

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

the lengths some go through to justify killing a child are not funny they are sad,,,

If you think an unconscious unborn is somehow aware and therefore valuable, then you would have to believe in something beyond the physical consciousness, which does not exist yet.
And that would have to be something like the soul.
But if you do believe in something like that, then the body becomes even less important.
If you abort one fetus because it is less than ideal, then that soul will get a better chance in a different body.
There is no reason to attach to a body that has not even developed consciousness yet.

no matter your excuses its still a human life,,,

So?
Human life is not sacred.
There are defective humans who rape and kill, and then have to be killed, all the time.
How is human life that kills to eat meat, more valuable than the life of a vegetarian animal like koala bear, that never kills anything?

 

[progressive hunter]

It can be nothing but human life.

I'll accept the risk.

Nonsense.
A human embryo can be defective and produce a body that does not even have a functional brain.
It will never be a human.
When there is brain death, like Terry Schievo, there is no human.
Being a human requires having a functioning brain that is capable of being self aware.

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

the lengths some go through to justify killing a child are not funny they are sad,,,

If you think an unconscious unborn is somehow aware and therefore valuable, then you would have to believe in something beyond the physical consciousness, which does not exist yet.
And that would have to be something like the soul.
But if you do believe in something like that, then the body becomes even less important.
If you abort one fetus because it is less than ideal, then that soul will get a better chance in a different body.
There is no reason to attach to a body that has not even developed consciousness yet.

no matter your excuses its still a human life,,,

So?
Human life is not sacred.
There are defective humans who rape and kill, and then have to be killed, all the time.
How is human life that kills to eat meat, more valuable than the life of a vegetarian animal like koala bear, that never kills anything?

your excuses are truly sad,,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A human embryo can be defective and produce a body that does not even have a functional brain.
It will never be a human.
When there is brain death, like Terry Schievo [sic], there is no human.
Being a human requires having a functioning brain that is capable of being self aware.

So, [B]LI[/B]b[B]E[/B]rals don't qualify as human, then?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

All humans kill all the time, in support of more important things than mere life, like freedom, independence, etc.
If you pretend to not support killing, then you are a hypocrite if you support police, courtrooms, prisons, the military, etc.

Humans have a reproductive rate like rabbits because like rabbits, we did not live long on nature.
Now that we do live long, artificially, we have to reduce reproductive rate, anyway possible,
The planet has limited resource, and if we do not limit populations, then we destroy all life on the whole planet.