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

[Ringtone]

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.

Everything the left spouts are lies.

An embryo/fetus is a baby.

Abortions on demand of perfectly stable pregnancies are murder.

Babies are killed.

And prohibiting murder advances individual liberty.

Murder has nothing to do with abortion dummy.

Once again, you idiot. Moral philosophy precedes and has primacy over legal philosophy. The former is fixed and eternal; it informs the latter. Regarding the fundamentals, either the latter is in line with the former in any given society, or a state of unrest ensues. Make no mistake about: the fixed and eternal moral imperatives go to the sanctity of human life and the security of private property, i.e., the predicates of liberty.

Your ethics are the stuff of the Cracker Jack Box School of Imbecility.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Everything the left spouts are lies.

An embryo/fetus is a baby.

Abortions on demand of perfectly stable pregnancies are murder.

Babies are killed.

And prohibiting murder advances individual liberty.

Murder has nothing to do with abortion dummy.

Once again, you idiot. Moral philosophy precedes and has primacy over legal philosophy. The former is fixed and eternal; it informs the latter. Regarding the fundamentals, either the latter is in line with the former in any given society, or a state of unrest ensues. Make no mistake about: the fixed and eternal moral imperatives go to the sanctity of human life and the security of private property, i.e., the predicates of liberty.

Your ethics are the stuff of the Cracker Jack Box School of Imbecility.

Once again. Prove your claim. Show me where murder has ever meant anything other than an unlawful killing.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Everything the left spouts are lies.

An embryo/fetus is a baby.

Abortions on demand of perfectly stable pregnancies are murder.

Babies are killed.

And prohibiting murder advances individual liberty.

Murder has nothing to do with abortion dummy.

Once again, you idiot. Moral philosophy precedes and has primacy over legal philosophy. The former is fixed and eternal; it informs the latter. Regarding the fundamentals, either the latter is in line with the former in any given society, or a state of unrest ensues. Make no mistake about: the fixed and eternal moral imperatives go to the sanctity of human life and the security of private property, i.e., the predicates of liberty.

Your ethics are the stuff of the Cracker Jack Box School of Imbecility.

While there is a moral imperative in regards to the sanctity of life, there is no such in regards to private property. Property is not life.

If human is sacred, then along with abortion, a truly ethical person would also oppose the death penalty.

 

[Coyote]

How does forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy protecting freedom?

I don't claim that it does. But in this case, it protects the life of an innocent child, from those who would murder him in cold blood. Certainly, to anyone who is not a soulless, murderous sociopath, this is far more important than any notion of “freedom” that would be upheld by allowing that child to be murdered.

So you would allow the mother to die instead?

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Get back to us when you have mandated paid maternity leave and job protection for pregnant women, along with universal health care for mother and child. When you have viable and affordable child care options for the working poor, and a minimum wage that approaches the cost of living for the working poor - you know, like the REST OF THE FIRST WORLD NATIONS HAVE.

Do those things, and watch your abortion rate plummett like a stone.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Are you a male or female, I bet a male.

See, because men have NO RIGHTS to any opinion on THEIR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD, or whether they may have to PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR 18 YEARS.

I'll bet that you think that women in China who have their female babies aborted are undergoing a "barbaric practice." But killing equal numbers of boys and girls is just fine. It's really a "choice" over there. They want boys to support them in their old age. In America it's mere convenience based on Norma McCorvey's lie that she had been raped.

My Blog

 

[Thinker101]

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

Abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. It's none of my business and certainly not yours. Period!

Great, then the woman, her doctor or her God ought to pay for it...dumbass.

Why?

Obviously you don't think these things through, if your assertion is "abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God", then one of them should pay for it. Feeling they should make the choice and others should pay for it is just idiotic.

 

[Rigby5]

Trying to control others, their bodies, their families, etc., is the worst possible thing anyone could ever do.

Murdering innocent children in cold blood is worse.

Can't be true, or else the US would not have murdered to so many Iraqi innocent children in cold blood.

 

[Rigby5]

A fetus is not sentient so then is not valuable, but instead could be harmful.

You, rather obviously, are no more sentient, therefore, by your own logic, no more valuable.

Sentient means self aware.
And if we can have a discussion like this, we have to both be sentient.
Can you discuss with a fetus?
I don't think so.

 

[Coyote]

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

Abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. It's none of my business and certainly not yours. Period!

Great, then the woman, her doctor or her God ought to pay for it...dumbass.

Why?

Obviously you don't think these things through, if your assertion is "abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God", then one of them should pay for it. Feeling they should make the choice and others should pay for it is just idiotic.

Should other's pay for other types of medical procedures?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Once again, you idiot. Moral philosophy precedes and has primacy over legal philosophy. The former is fixed and eternal; it informs the latter. Regarding the fundamentals, either the latter is in line with the former in any given society, or a state of unrest ensues. Make no mistake about: the fixed and eternal moral imperatives go to the sanctity of human life and the security of private property, i.e., the predicates of liberty.

Your ethics are the stuff of the Cracker Jack Box School of Imbecility.

He stated this, earlier in this thread:

Pretty much. I'm the only one that can tell me if something is wrong or right.

Essentially, that's a rejection of any concept of right and wrong outside of what he makes up for himself, at any given moment, to suit his own purposes. If he wants to go rob a convenience store, he's basically claiming the moral authority to declare that to be right, and denying any authority on any other part to tell him it's wrong.

 

[Thinker101]

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

Abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. It's none of my business and certainly not yours. Period!

Great, then the woman, her doctor or her God ought to pay for it...dumbass.

Why?

Obviously you don't think these things through, if your assertion is "abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God", then one of them should pay for it. Feeling they should make the choice and others should pay for it is just idiotic.

Should other's pay for other types of medical procedures?

Other's should pay for their own medical procedures.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. It's none of my business and certainly not yours. Period!

Great, then the woman, her doctor or her God ought to pay for it...dumbass.

Why?

Obviously you don't think these things through, if your assertion is "abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God", then one of them should pay for it. Feeling they should make the choice and others should pay for it is just idiotic.

Should other's pay for other types of medical procedures?

I think so.
Others that have to go through painful medical procedures are already enduring enough, and the least others who are luckier should do is pay for it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

While there is a moral imperative in regards to the sanctity of life, there is no such in regards to private property. Property is not life.

So, stealing is OK, then? Or vandalism?

If human is sacred, then along with abortion, a truly ethical person would also oppose the death penalty.

I suppose that could be true, if you make no distinction between the very worst violent criminal,and the most innocent, defenseless child. I think I can safely speak for all sane, decent people, when I say that there is a very significant distinction, here, that you are trying to deny.

In any case, it is the one who defends murdering an innocent unborn child but who opposes putting a violent criminal to death, who has some explaining to do. But really, what more explanation is needed there, than to recognize that such a person is simply evil?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So you would allow the mother to die instead?

I'm in favor of allowing abortion, when it is genuinely necessary to mitigate a serious and plausible risk to the life of the mother. I'm not happy with it, but really, in such a situation, there is no resolution that is to be happy with.

That is worlds away from your promotional, which allows an innocent child to be murdered for no greater reason than that his existence is inconvenient to those who ought to be most responsible for his life and his well-being. To support that is just plain evil.

 

[pknopp]

While there is a moral imperative in regards to the sanctity of life, there is no such in regards to private property. Property is not life.

So, stealing is OK, then? Or vandalism?

If human is sacred, then along with abortion, a truly ethical person would also oppose the death penalty.

I suppose that could be true, if you make no distinction between the very worst violent criminal,and the most innocent, defenseless child. I think I can safely speak for all sane, decent people, when I say that there is a very significant distinction, here, that you are trying to deny.

In any case, it is the one who defends murdering an innocent unborn child but who opposes putting a violent criminal to death, who has some explaining to do. But really, what more explanation is needed there, than to recognize that such a person is simply evil?

You aren't pro-life. You are anti-abortion. That seems to be quite common.

 

[Coyote]

While there is a moral imperative in regards to the sanctity of life, there is no such in regards to private property. Property is not life.

So, stealing is OK, then? Or vandalism?

You're creating a false dichotomy there - if it's not a "moral imperative" then it's "ok". It isn't ok, but it is not the same as taking life.

If human is sacred, then along with abortion, a truly ethical person would also oppose the death penalty.

I suppose that could be true, if you make no distinction between the very worst violent criminal,and the most innocent, defenseless child. I think I can safely speak for all sane, decent people, when I say that there is a very significant distinction, here, that you are trying to deny.

In any case, it is the one who defends murdering an innocent unborn child but who opposes putting a violent criminal to death, who has some explaining to do. But really, what more explanation is needed there, than to recognize that such a person is simply evil?

There is not a significant difference at all, IF human life is sacred. Either it is (all of it) or it isn't. It's not a cafeteria. And don't forget, innocent people do end up on death row.

I don't base my position on the "sanctity of human life" - you do though. If you pick and choose what human life is sacred, if only some of it is, then you are just as evil as those you decry.

 

[Coyote]

So you would allow the mother to die instead?

I'm in favor of allowing abortion, when it is genuinely necessary to mitigate a serious and plausible risk to the life of the mother. I'm not happy with it, but really, in such a situation, there is no resolution that is to be happy with.

That is worlds away from your promotional, which allows an innocent child to be murdered for no greater reason than that his existence is inconvenient to those who ought to be most responsible for his life and his well-being. To support that is just plain evil.

Choosing to bring a child into the world - choosing to start a family - is one of the most life changing milestones we pass. I don't know of anyone who has chosen to have a child based on "convenience". Likewise, the choice not to. I'm sure there are always going to be exceptions to that - but for most it's an agonizing and difficult decision. And it doesn't help that our country offers so little help to mother's after the child is born, help to keep them from dropping out of school, job security, affordable childcare, etc. You want them to have the baby but then dump them as "sluts" and tell them they'll have to work it out alone.

 

[Asclepias]

Once again, you idiot. Moral philosophy precedes and has primacy over legal philosophy. The former is fixed and eternal; it informs the latter. Regarding the fundamentals, either the latter is in line with the former in any given society, or a state of unrest ensues. Make no mistake about: the fixed and eternal moral imperatives go to the sanctity of human life and the security of private property, i.e., the predicates of liberty.

Your ethics are the stuff of the Cracker Jack Box School of Imbecility.

He stated this, earlier in this thread:

Pretty much. I'm the only one that can tell me if something is wrong or right.

Essentially, that's a rejection of any concept of right and wrong outside of what he makes up for himself, at any given moment, to suit his own purposes. If he wants to go rob a convenience store, he's basically claiming the moral authority to declare that to be right, and denying any authority on any other part to tell him it's wrong.

You should try claiming your own moral authority instead of letting someone define it for you. Its liberating and nothing at all like being a follower when you should be a leader.

 

[Asclepias]

While there is a moral imperative in regards to the sanctity of life, there is no such in regards to private property. Property is not life.

So, stealing is OK, then? Or vandalism?

If human is sacred, then along with abortion, a truly ethical person would also oppose the death penalty.

I suppose that could be true, if you make no distinction between the very worst violent criminal,and the most innocent, defenseless child. I think I can safely speak for all sane, decent people, when I say that there is a very significant distinction, here, that you are trying to deny.

In any case, it is the one who defends murdering an innocent unborn child but who opposes putting a violent criminal to death, who has some explaining to do. But really, what more explanation is needed there, than to recognize that such a person is simply evil?

"So, stealing is OK, then? Or vandalism?"

I'll answer that. Depends on the circumstances. Is it a life or death thing or is it simply due to greed? I have to admit that its laughable to hear white people pose such a question considering the history of europeans and their actions on every continent on this planet to be honest.