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

[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,,,

monty python is the best

Indeed:

CLEESE: I was given eight or 10 years—10 years—of a form of Christianity which I grew to despise and dislike. Largely, it insulted my intelligence. The sermons that were given, at the age of 11 and 12, I felt insulted my intelligence. When I got into writing this film, we all had exactly the same reaction. We started to discover a lot of stuff about Christianity and I started to get angry, because I started to think, "Why was I given this rubbish, this 10th-rate series of platitudes, when there were interesting things to have discussed? There were factual things." Nobody ever told me they don't know what language the Gospels were written in, that they don't even know who wrote them, and they're not sure what cities they were written in….

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

It's free at Planned Parenthood.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

It's free at Planned Parenthood.

Sure, nothing is free.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

I've never had an abortion. That was my choice. Of course I was never unmarried, poor, or in danger of losing my high paying job when I got pregnant. I had one year of paid maternity leave for my past pregnancy. I have universal health care and went to one of the top OB/Gyn's in Toronto, for the sole purpose of delivering in the Mt. Sinai Hilton.

You see how easy it is to be "pro-choice". You don't believe in abortion, then don't have sex with a woman who isn't in a position to have your baby. Live a moral life. And leave the rest of us alone.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

It's free at Planned Parenthood.

Sure, nothing is free.

OK, Planned Parenthood won't charge YOU for ED treatment.

 

[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.

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

monty python is the best

And you're still wrong. 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually in the first three months:

Miscarriage - Symptoms and causes

Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant.


Miscarriage is a somewhat loaded term — possibly suggesting that something was amiss in the carrying of the pregnancy. This is rarely true. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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

In exactly the same way "forcing" her not to kill her baby at six months because she decided motherhood was too much trouble does.

 

[progressive hunter]

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


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

And you're still wrong. 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually in the first three months:

Miscarriage - Symptoms and causes

Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant.


Miscarriage is a somewhat loaded term — possibly suggesting that something was amiss in the carrying of the pregnancy. This is rarely true. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally.

it was a baby/human life that was miscarried not a duck or racoon,,,
so I was right and 100% of all pregnancies result in a baby,,,

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You want to preach morals and instruct people on how to practice beliefs you don't share, and you think you can make a fetus not a life simply by declaring him "property"?

Your delusions continue to grow beyond all imagination.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Get back to us when anyone is asking you how they should run a country you don't live in . . . or asking you anything at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You need to have a word with Busy Philipps and the "Shout your abortion!" folks. Get on the same page.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

The health of the mother has never been valid to rabid anti-abortion zealots - for any reason.

No, what's never been valid for any reason is the LIFE of the BABY to the rabid pro-abortion psychos.

 

[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.

You need to have a word with Busy Philipps and the "Shout your abortion!" folks. Get on the same page.

I have no idea who they are. A fringe group?

 

[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

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.

Get back to us when anyone is asking you how they should run a country you don't live in . . . or asking you anything at all.

Since when has that ever shut you up when you are yapping about other countries?

She made some good points. Given your inability to address them, I am guessing you are one of those who’s concern for children ends at birth (or the border fence).

 

[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.

You want to preach morals and instruct people on how to practice beliefs you don't share, and you think you can make a fetus not a life simply by declaring him "property"?

Your delusions continue to grow beyond all imagination.

The only delusion is the one where you claim to be pro-life.

 

[Coyote]

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

That is the other side of the pro life coin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, what was "barbaric" was the idea that the state could tell people how many children they may have, and FORCE women to terminate the pregnancy, against their will.

It was the LACK OF CHOICE that made the Chinese government practices "barbaric". You would similary remove a woman's right to choose, although in your case you would force to have a child she cannot support.

Precisely! And the problem all along was the economically destructive and oppressive policies of Marxism. Now China faces the the duel crises of too few women to men in its population and the disaster of an aging population that can't replace itself fast enough.

Don't like abortion? Simples. Don't have one.

And I might accept that argument the day the left applies it to anything other than "don't like killing babies? Don't kill any."

"Don't like guns? Don't buy one."
"Don't like billionaires? Don't become one."
"Don't like Christian-owned businesses? Don't shop there."
"Don't like right-wing TV/radio/podcasts/posts on the Internet? Don't listen to/read them."

But somehow, THAT isn't possible. It's only infanticide we're supposed to be "live and let live" about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those who believe they are right should seek to educate, not to legislate. Belief is OK, but it is not certainty and should not be foisted off onto others who believe differently.
We all alter "destiny" with every move we make. We change the universe. That is the power of being human, a power rarely appreciated. We cannot avoid it. All we can do is try to avoid responsibility.In America, paying taxes means killing innocent women and children around the world. These are people here and now, active and living, with aspirations, feelings, hopes and fears. This killing is unnecessary and can be stopped. Any society that allows that has little place meddling in an individual woman's painful decisions about the entire course of her being.

Call me when the left EVER chooses education over legislation. I can't remember the last time you puswads tried to convince people with reasoned argument, instead of just cramming your edicts down everyone's throat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well another way of making 44% of abortions be eliminated... sterilization of women who have 2 or more abortions.
Not one of the above comments have made that distinction. Why are dumb, insensitive women still having sex, getting pregnant and then aborting?
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
These women should be sterilized as they are in all likelihood also a social services recipient. At least reduce the option for multiple abortions.

A woman has more than two abortions, she's probably sterilized herself without realizing it. Her body will think that's what it's supposed to do when it gets pregnant, and start spontaneously miscarrying on its own.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!

Do NOT take on like you're defending women against "eeeevil" pro-life men, Chuckles.