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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I have never encountered anyone making that argument, who is willing to give up his own life for the good of the planet, and for humanity as a whole.

They always want other people to die, but not themselves.

Is there any reason to expect that you are any different?

The only way for the human race to continue existing is for people with ideas like mine to keep other who would prevent free choice from getting into power.
So I can not sacrifice myself without causing greater harm.
But if I could ensure the survival of humanity by sacrificing myself, of course I would.
Anyone would.
That is the point of then lifeboat rules of women and children first.
Anyone would do that.
It is in our DNA.

Thanks for sharing, Ted Bundy. Dismissed.

 

[Dragonlady]

Y'know describing legal abortion as

Murdering innocent human beings in cold blood

is a a mighty convenient choice for those who will never need one. Support for the knuckledragging patriarchy has long been in decline, but never let that slow you down. Keep imposing your silly beliefs on others! After all, that's what being an "innocent", "decent", "human being" is all about!

I think it says all that anyone needs to know about you, that you think it constitutes “Support for the knuckledragging patriarchy” and “imposing your silly beliefs on others” to believe that the most innocent and defenseless of all children ought to be protected from those who would savagely kill them in cold blood.

Truly, this is what evil looks like, in its purest form.

Oh just stop with your lying bullshit, faux outrage. Where is your outrage over the 45,000 living Americans who die every single year due to lack of access to timely health care? Where is your outrage over the 35,000 living Americans who die every single year due to gun violence? Where is your outrage over the 75,000 Americans who are dying because of the opiod epidemic?

The unborn are so easy to love, and yet you treat the children of the poor so badly. 80% of the women who get abortions live at or just above the poverty level. These are the women you want to stop from getting abortions, but yet you refuse to raise their minimum wage pay or give workers universal health care. This is what happens to women who cannot get an abortion:

What Happens to Women Who Are Denied Abortions?

Research Points to Negative Health Outcomes for Women and Families as More States Restrict Abortions

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Says the "man" who's calmly arguing in favor of killing babies as a danger to humanity.

“Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.” — Lord F•ckwad, Shrek​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh just stop with your lying bullshit, faux outrage. Where is your outrage over the 45,000 living Americans who die every single year due to lack of access to timely health care? Where is your outrage over the 35,000 living Americans who die every single year due to gun violence? Where is your outrage over the 75,000 Americans who are dying because of the opiod [sic] epidemic?

All tragic, to be sure, but nothing compared to over a million cold-blooded murders if innocent children, which you support.

Abortion is the single greatest cause of premature death, and as long as you defend it, you're in no position to point accusing fingers at anyone else over any other cause of death.

 

[Cecilie1200]

These fake Christians are nowhere to be found after one of our mass shootings or whenever we invade a poor country just to amuse ourselves. Are they pro-life? Not even close. They think that a 16 year old dropout having a baby is a good idea but you`ll hear them howl when mother and child are on the welfare rolls for the next 6 or 7 decades.

I just heard, "My masters in the media don't tell me to know about it, so I'm sure it doesn't happen."

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They think that a 16 year old dropout having a baby is a good idea…

i don't know of anyone who thinks that. Neither do you.

Decent people, however, think that needlessly murdering an innocent child in cold blood is an even worse idea.

 

[ReinyDays]

Foster care for unwanted children is all but non-existent ... unless we include brothels in Nevada ... if you're against abortion, then you should be for massive increases in orphan care ... raise taxes ... otherwise you're turning toddlers out on the street to make their own way ... very humane ...

Alternately, we could make sex outside of marriage a felony ... the Bible gives the death penalty for such ... very Christian of you ...

The OP is spot-on correct ... abortions to save the mother's life are rare ... far more common are cases of rape and incest ... papa likes being first in ...

 

[ReinyDays]

i don't know of anyone who thinks that. Neither do you.
Decent people, however, think that needlessly murdering an innocent child in cold blood is an even worse idea.

Pick one or the other ... you can't have it both ways ... she's 16 and pregnant, is high school a good place for her to be? ... how about nursing every two hours, whip that boob out in history class ... great idea ...

 

[Lysistrata]

Imagine you are a teenager and own a car, and have a driver's license, while NONE of your friends do.

Of course, you friends always find reasons to ask you - plead with you - to use the car and take them some place, it is your car and you are the driver, so if you get into trouble with the car, regardless of how much pleading went on, it is ON YOU.

Now imagine you are a human with a vagina. No one else can use it without your consent. You have complete control of it. So when "trouble" occurs because of promiscuous use of it, it is ON YOU.

Sorry. It is what it is.

Your comment places the issue of abortion solely in the context of a person's sex life and infers that becoming pregnant is a punishment for the female half of a couple. Your comment is not about morality. You just have a thing about female sexuality, which is creepy. What punishment do you have in mind for all of those nasty, "promiscuous" little boys out there? Do you actually think that all Americans are barflies?

What does being "promiscuous" mean? Who decides what "promiscuous use" of a person's genitalia is? Most people who have abortions are not sleeping around with strangers, anyway.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.
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.

Okay, let's do this.. I mean explore the concepts "human", "life", and "being", see what DNA can really do to help us, and dispose of the trailing irrelevant leaps of logic.

Humans (Homo sapiens) are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina. Together with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, they are part of the family Hominidae (the great apes, or hominids).

Definition of life
1a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism (see METABOLISM sense 1), growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

So, since humans are a species that currently exists, the fertilized eggs of which generally being considered "animate" and not described as "inorganic" or "dead", and can also be expected to metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, and possibly reproduce eventually.. Yeah, one could definitely say hominid life begins at conception. No joke. Perhaps sooner.. Seems to depend upon whether eggs (or sperm) metabolize.. I'm no biologist, but I would venture they technically do. Anyway, I could go on but the point should already be clear. Arguing with choice deniers about human life is misguided so a real waste of time. It only serves to fuel their frenzy. However, I find this bit fascinating:

The closest living relatives of humans are chimpanzees (genus Pan) and gorillas (genus Gorilla).[39] With the sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes, current estimates of similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%.[39][40][41] By using the technique called a molecular clock which estimates the time required for the number of divergent mutations to accumulate between two lineages, the approximate date for the split between lineages can be calculated. The gibbons (family Hylobatidae) and orangutans (genus Pongo) were the first groups to split from the line leading to the humans, then gorillas (genus Gorilla) followed by the chimpanzees (genus Pan). The splitting date between human and chimpanzee lineages is placed around 4–8 million years ago during the late Miocene epoch.[42][43] During this split, chromosome 2 was formed from two other chromosomes, leaving humans with only 23 pairs of chromosomes, compared to 24 for the other apes.[44]

See, if you could manage to swab some DNA from the cheek of a fetus.. you could tell if it was human or not. No other input necessary. That's not really at issue.

It's not yet, however, technically or legally, a "child", "person", nor the myriad bullshit that commonly flows from those leaps of illogic. ..eta: "innocent", "baby",.. add "defenseless",..

Arguing over legal or moral concerns prior to legal viability just seems like nonsense. There exists no legal "person" in any sense prior. Between there and actually being capable of surviving independent of the mother without modern medical interventions may exist logical ground for debate.. as was done in Roe..

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.

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.

You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.

If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?

Let's start with your first lie: You are not taking the "life of the most innocent and defenseless child". You are terminating a pregnancy, which may or may not become a baby. I've had 5 pregnancies but only three babies. The other two pregnancies ended with a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". On average, 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Scientists believe that there was some sort of failure in the genetic plan and the fetus wasn't viable. On my last miscarriage, ultrasounds showed no heartbeat at 6 weeks, and no heartbeat and no growth at 8 weeks.

Every sperm is not sacred, and every fetus was not meant to be. Biology has given women the option to chose to end her pregnancy and pick a better time, and certainly during times of war or famine, it was necessary for the survival of the family. Given the lives of young working poor women in the USA, having more than one child is really not a viable option.

 

[August West]

They think that a 16 year old dropout having a baby is a good idea…

i don't know of anyone who thinks that. Neither do you.

Decent people, however, think that needlessly murdering an innocent child in cold blood is an even worse idea.

People who murder children are in jail or they need to be. How about if they murder young adults? Are they not as sacred as a 6 week old fetus?

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.

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.

You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.

If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?

Let's start with your first lie: You are not taking the "life of the most innocent and defenseless child". You are terminating a pregnancy, which may or may not become a baby. I've had 5 pregnancies but only three babies. The other two pregnancies ended with a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". On average, 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Scientists believe that there was some sort of failure in the genetic plan and the fetus wasn't viable. On my last miscarriage, ultrasounds showed no heartbeat at 6 weeks, and no heartbeat and no growth at 8 weeks.

Every sperm is not sacred, and every fetus was not meant to be. Biology has given women the option to chose to end her pregnancy and pick a better time, and certainly during times of war or famine, it was necessary for the survival of the family. Given the lives of young working poor women in the USA, having more than one child is really not a viable option.

sorry but youre the liar,,,
100% OF PREGNANCYS result in a baby barring catastrophic events that end its life,,,

 

[OnePercenter]

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

There's another person involved, who is profoundly affected by this “choice”, and that is an innocent child, who is given no say in what happens to him. It most certainly is that child's business, and the business of anyone who values the life of an innocent child.

Legally, does the sperm donor have a choice?

 

[ReinyDays]

sorry but youre the liar,,,
100% OF PREGNANCYS result in a baby barring catastrophic events that end its life,,,

Maybe you weren't aware that around 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage ... sometimes as soon as the woman is due for her flowers ... she won't even know she was pregnant ... an important evolutionary trait for species that use the "few offspring, heavy investment" strategy ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.

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.

You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.

If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?

Let's start with your first lie: You are not taking the "life of the most innocent and defenseless child". You are terminating a pregnancy, which may or may not become a baby. I've had 5 pregnancies but only three babies. The other two pregnancies ended with a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". On average, 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Scientists believe that there was some sort of failure in the genetic plan and the fetus wasn't viable. On my last miscarriage, ultrasounds showed no heartbeat at 6 weeks, and no heartbeat and no growth at 8 weeks.

Every sperm is not sacred, and every fetus was not meant to be. Biology has given women the option to chose to end her pregnancy and pick a better time, and certainly during times of war or famine, it was necessary for the survival of the family. Given the lives of young working poor women in the USA, having more than one child is really not a viable option.

sorry but youre the liar,,,
100% OF PREGNANCYS result in a baby barring catastrophic events that end its life,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.

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.

You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.

If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?

Let's start with your first lie: You are not taking the "life of the most innocent and defenseless child". You are terminating a pregnancy, which may or may not become a baby. I've had 5 pregnancies but only three babies. The other two pregnancies ended with a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". On average, 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Scientists believe that there was some sort of failure in the genetic plan and the fetus wasn't viable. On my last miscarriage, ultrasounds showed no heartbeat at 6 weeks, and no heartbeat and no growth at 8 weeks.

Every sperm is not sacred, and every fetus was not meant to be. Biology has given women the option to chose to end her pregnancy and pick a better time, and certainly during times of war or famine, it was necessary for the survival of the family. Given the lives of young working poor women in the USA, having more than one child is really not a viable option.

sorry but youre the liar,,,
100% OF PREGNANCYS result in a baby barring catastrophic events that end its life,,,

monty python is the best

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

Who should pay for ED treatment?

 

[progressive hunter]

sorry but youre the liar,,,
100% OF PREGNANCYS result in a baby barring catastrophic events that end its life,,,

Maybe you weren't aware that around 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage ... sometimes as soon as the woman is due for her flowers ... she won't even know she was pregnant ... an important evolutionary trait for species that use the "few offspring, heavy investment" strategy ...

miscarriage of a baby/human life,,,

sure the fuck isnt a duck thats miscarried,,,

 

[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.

Who should pay for ED treatment?

You should pay for your own ED treatment.