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

[pknopp]

There is a reason you avoided the question I asked you yesterday.

I do not know to which question you are referring, but most likely, like most things you post, it was probably not worthy of any response. If I were wise, I'd recognize that about all your postings,and not waste my time or attention. Just because I an foolish enough to waste time and attention on some of your murderous, sociopathic nonsense does not obligate me to waste time and attention on all of it.

There are many things we can pursue that would help a woman decide not to abort. UHC, more affordable access to higher education. A higher minimum wage. A better access to affordable day care.......I can continue.

I find a large percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" argue against these things even though they would help a woman decide to not abort.

Why is that?

Again, that knife cuts both ways.

If you sincerely have empathy in all tjose situations you just lisyed. . .

Why no empathy for the childten being aborted too?

I'm pro-life.......I don't just pretend to be.

I call.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

Do you vote accordingly?

Kinda generic questions there. I haven't voted for either major party candidate in years if you think that is important. This is not about politics.

 

[there4eyeM]

If you are a blind supporter of either party this is what you support also.

Civilians Killed & Wounded | Costs of War

Are you suggesting that (mostly unavoidable) war atrocities are somehow justification for an acceptance abortions?

It would seem, rather, that what is suggested is that protesting against abortion obligates protesting slaughter of civilians.

Obligates. . .

Right.

But not the other way around?

Why would it?

Weren't you the one that first tied the two issues together and introduced the word "obligation?"

It would appear so.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There are many things we can pursue that would help a woman decide not to abort. UHC, more affordable access to higher education. A higher minimum wage. A better access to affordable day care.......I can continue.

I find a large percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" argue against these things even though they would help a woman decide to not abort.

I think your “point” here is deceitful nonsense, at the very best.

You want to reduce the rate of murder, by promoting policies which you deceitfully claim will reduce the motive for murder.

Who do you think you are fooling with such nonsense?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Show where any statement by me denigrated anyone.

Show me any statement that you have made about the unborn, in which you do nor deny their humanity, or otherwise denigrate them as being less than human, and therefore unworthy of having even their basic right to life protected by law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm pro-life.......I don't just pretend to be.

[ATTACH=full]311794[/ATTACH]

 

[Chuz Life]

I do not know to which question you are referring, but most likely, like most things you post, it was probably not worthy of any response. If I were wise, I'd recognize that about all your postings,and not waste my time or attention. Just because I an foolish enough to waste time and attention on some of your murderous, sociopathic nonsense does not obligate me to waste time and attention on all of it.

There are many things we can pursue that would help a woman decide not to abort. UHC, more affordable access to higher education. A higher minimum wage. A better access to affordable day care.......I can continue.

I find a large percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" argue against these things even though they would help a woman decide to not abort.

Why is that?

Again, that knife cuts both ways.

If you sincerely have empathy in all tjose situations you just lisyed. . .

Why no empathy for the childten being aborted too?

I'm pro-life.......I don't just pretend to be.

I call.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

Do you vote accordingly?

Kinda generic questions there. I haven't voted for either major party candidate in years if you think that is important. This is not about politics.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

It's a yes or no question.

 

[pknopp]

There are many things we can pursue that would help a woman decide not to abort. UHC, more affordable access to higher education. A higher minimum wage. A better access to affordable day care.......I can continue.

I find a large percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" argue against these things even though they would help a woman decide to not abort.

I think your “point” here is deceitful nonsense, at the very best.

You want to reduce the rate of murder, by promoting policies which you deceitfully claim will reduce the motive for murder.

Who do you think you are fooling with such nonsense?

You are quite transparent. You are not pro-life. You are pro-partisan politics.

 

[pknopp]

There are many things we can pursue that would help a woman decide not to abort. UHC, more affordable access to higher education. A higher minimum wage. A better access to affordable day care.......I can continue.

I find a large percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" argue against these things even though they would help a woman decide to not abort.

Why is that?

Again, that knife cuts both ways.

If you sincerely have empathy in all tjose situations you just lisyed. . .

Why no empathy for the childten being aborted too?

I'm pro-life.......I don't just pretend to be.

I call.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

Do you vote accordingly?

Kinda generic questions there. I haven't voted for either major party candidate in years if you think that is important. This is not about politics.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

It's a yes or no question.

You mean the born and the unborn? Those who don't look just like me? Those displaced? Those seeking refuge?

Yes.

 

[Chuz Life]

Again, that knife cuts both ways.

If you sincerely have empathy in all tjose situations you just lisyed. . .

Why no empathy for the childten being aborted too?

I'm pro-life.......I don't just pretend to be.

I call.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

Do you vote accordingly?

Kinda generic questions there. I haven't voted for either major party candidate in years if you think that is important. This is not about politics.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

It's a yes or no question.

You mean the born and the unborn? Those who don't look just like me? Those displaced? Those seeking refuge?

Yes.

Fyi.

That is not coming across in your posts.

 

[pknopp]

I'm pro-life.......I don't just pretend to be.

I call.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

Do you vote accordingly?

Kinda generic questions there. I haven't voted for either major party candidate in years if you think that is important. This is not about politics.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

It's a yes or no question.

You mean the born and the unborn? Those who don't look just like me? Those displaced? Those seeking refuge?

Yes.

Fyi.

That was not coming across in your posts.

Because I wasn't taking the corporate position?

 

[Chuz Life]

I call.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

Do you vote accordingly?

Kinda generic questions there. I haven't voted for either major party candidate in years if you think that is important. This is not about politics.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

It's a yes or no question.

You mean the born and the unborn? Those who don't look just like me? Those displaced? Those seeking refuge?

Yes.

Fyi.

That was not coming across in your posts.

Because I wasn't taking the corporate position?

Because you are actively discouraging and muddying the waters of those who care just as much or maybe even more about the issues than you claim to.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you are a Democrat, this is what you are voting for:
View attachment 311753

If you are a blind supporter of either party this is what you support also.

Civilians Killed & Wounded | Costs of War

Are you suggesting that (mostly unavoidable) war atrocities are somehow justification for an acceptance abortions?

It would seem, rather, that what is suggested is that protesting against abortion obligates protesting slaughter of civilians.

Obligates. . .

Right.

But not the other way around?

Why doesn't your (supposed) outrage over children killed in war not also "obligate" you to fight abortion?

That knife cuts both ways.

There is no comparison between terminating a pregnancy and "murdering a child". Women have the God-given right to decide when and if, we are going to have a baby, and screw any man who would take away our right to determine when and if we are going to have a baby.

The ways and means of avoiding having an abortion, if you believe that having an abortion is wrong, including, but not limited to, keep it in your pants if you are a man, and for women who think abortion is wrong, dont have an abortion. This isn't a matter of don't steal something, because forcing a woman to parent a child she cannot afford or doesn't want, never turns out well for either the mother or the child.

You want children to exist, to what end? You don't want to pay to feed, house or educate these children, so why are you so desperate for these children to be born? If you helped women take care of these children, they would be in a better position to welcome these babies.

My youngest daughter says that many young women of her generation are refusing to have children at all. Child care and the cost of raising a child is so high, that young women feel they will never have any quality of life at all if they have a child. Many are getting their tubes tied in their 20's before ohaving children.

 

[Coyote]

The anti-abortion crowd needs to learn to use their words correctly. "Infanticide" is the intentional murder of a living, breathing, infant. Not the termination of an early pregnancy.

Whatever absurd semantic games you try to play do not change the truth. Abortion is homicide. It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And absent circumstances to require it, comparable to circumstances under which homicide is otherwise justifiable, it is an evil act, that ought not ever be tolerated by any civilized society.

It is not a semantic game. Words have e meanings. You want arbitrarily change them.

Infant: very young child or baby. Prior to bith it is a fetus, embryo, zygote....

It's a semantic game when you want to use colloquial terms after birth and medical terms before, and pretend the medical terms mean "not a baby".

No. It's not semantics. It's accuracy. What you call "colloquial" terms are scientific terms accurately describing phases of development. What do you fail to understand about that? You don't get to create your own definitions just because the real ones don't suit you.

 

[pknopp]

Kinda generic questions there. I haven't voted for either major party candidate in years if you think that is important. This is not about politics.

Are you a defender of basic human rights even for the most basic human beings of all?

It's a yes or no question.

You mean the born and the unborn? Those who don't look just like me? Those displaced? Those seeking refuge?

Yes.

Fyi.

That was not coming across in your posts.

Because I wasn't taking the corporate position?

Because you are actively discouraging and muddying the waters of those who care just as much or maybe even more about the issues than you claim to.

For many I do not believe that to be the case. I believe it's all politics.

There are many things we could do to help a woman decide to not abort but a large number of people who claim to be pro-life oppose those things.

Why? (I listed a few earlier)

 

[pknopp]

If you are a Democrat, this is what you are voting for:
View attachment 311753

If you are a blind supporter of either party this is what you support also.

Civilians Killed & Wounded | Costs of War

Are you suggesting that (mostly unavoidable) war atrocities are somehow justification for an acceptance abortions?

It would seem, rather, that what is suggested is that protesting against abortion obligates protesting slaughter of civilians.

Obligates. . .

Right.

But not the other way around?

Why doesn't your (supposed) outrage over children killed in war not also "obligate" you to fight abortion?

That knife cuts both ways.

There is no comparison between terminating a pregnancy and "murdering a child". Women have the God-given right to decide when and if, we are going to have a baby, and screw any man who would take away our right to determine when and if we are going to have a baby.

The ways and means of avoiding having an abortion, if you believe that having an abortion is wrong, including, but not limited to, keep it in your pants if you are a man, and for women who think abortion is wrong, dont have an abortion. This isn't a matter of don't steal something, because forcing a woman to parent a child she cannot afford or doesn't want, never turns out well for either the mother or the child.

You want children to exist, to what end? You don't want to pay to feed, house or educate these children, so why are you so desperate for these children to be born? If you helped women take care of these children, they would be in a better position to welcome these babies.

My youngest daughter says that many young women of her generation are refusing to have children at all. Child care and the cost of raising a child is so high, that young women feel they will never have any quality of life at all if they have a child. Many are getting their tubes tied in their 20's before ohaving children.

Those who decided RvW put allowable restrictions on abortion.

But you do highlight one reason many abort that the "pro-lifers" will many times oppose addressing.

Makes no sense to me.

 

[Chuz Life]

If you are a Democrat, this is what you are voting for:
View attachment 311753

If you are a blind supporter of either party this is what you support also.

Civilians Killed & Wounded | Costs of War

Are you suggesting that (mostly unavoidable) war atrocities are somehow justification for an acceptance abortions?

It would seem, rather, that what is suggested is that protesting against abortion obligates protesting slaughter of civilians.

Obligates. . .

Right.

But not the other way around?

Why doesn't your (supposed) outrage over children killed in war not also "obligate" you to fight abortion?

That knife cuts both ways.

There is no comparison between terminating a pregnancy and "murdering a child". Women have the God-given right to decide when and if, we are going to have a baby, and screw any man who would take away our right to determine when and if we are going to have a baby.

The ways and means of avoiding having an abortion, if you believe that having an abortion is wrong, including, but not limited to, keep it in your pants if you are a man, and for women who think abortion is wrong, dont have an abortion. This isn't a matter of don't steal something, because forcing a woman to parent a child she cannot afford or doesn't want, never turns out well for either the mother or the child.

You want children to exist, to what end? You don't want to pay to feed, house or educate these children, so why are you so desperate for these children to be born? If you helped women take care of these children, they would be in a better position to welcome these babies.

My youngest daughter says that many young women of her generation are refusing to have children at all. Child care and the cost of raising a child is so high, that young women feel they will never have any quality of life at all if they have a child. Many are getting their tubes tied in their 20's before ohaving children.

Biology 101 newsflash for you. . .

If a woman is pregnant, she already HAS a child.

Whether she might not want it or not. . . And guess what!?!

Children have a right to the equal protections of our laws.

 

[Coyote]

There is a reason you avoided the question I asked you yesterday.

I do not know to which question you are referring, but most likely, like most things you post, it was probably not worthy of any response. If I were wise, I'd recognize that about all your postings,and not waste my time or attention. Just because I an foolish enough to waste time and attention on some of your murderous, sociopathic nonsense does not obligate me to waste time and attention on all of it.

There are many things we can pursue that would help a woman decide not to abort. UHC, more affordable access to higher education. A higher minimum wage. A better access to affordable day care.......I can continue.

I find a large percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" argue against these things even though they would help a woman decide to not abort.

Why is that?

How do you reduce abortion rates?

One way of thinking:
Readily available contraception (gasp - even free!)
Accurate and readily available information on sex, responsibility, and pregnancy prevention.
Supporting a culture that recognizes that while personal responsibility and waiting is important - teens are not adults, their executive functions are not mature - make sure they know how to protect themselves.
Recognize that despite all that there will be woman who will find themselves in an untenable position: pregnant and unable to support a child for whatever reasons.
Provide resources and an environment that supports making a choice FOR the child's life - mentoring, support to remain in school, affordable childcare if she works, paid maternity leave, health insurance to cover her pregnancy and birth, and follow up. All of the above, which would apply, should she choose adoption. Support her choice! That is "pro-choice".

The other way of thinking:
Make abortion illegal.
Force her to have the child, and after birth label her a slut and a welfare parasite, cut the programs that help single mothers, and tell she ought to marry the father.

 

[Chuz Life]

The anti-abortion crowd needs to learn to use their words correctly. "Infanticide" is the intentional murder of a living, breathing, infant. Not the termination of an early pregnancy.

Whatever absurd semantic games you try to play do not change the truth. Abortion is homicide. It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And absent circumstances to require it, comparable to circumstances under which homicide is otherwise justifiable, it is an evil act, that ought not ever be tolerated by any civilized society.

It is not a semantic game. Words have e meanings. You want arbitrarily change them.

Infant: very young child or baby. Prior to bith it is a fetus, embryo, zygote....

It's a semantic game when you want to use colloquial terms after birth and medical terms before, and pretend the medical terms mean "not a baby".

No. It's not semantics. It's accuracy. What you call "colloquial" terms are scientific terms accurately describing phases of development. What do you fail to understand about that? You don't get to create your own definitions just because the real ones don't suit you.

You don't get to cherrrypick definitions either. . . But you keep trying to do just that.

 

[Coyote]

The anti-abortion crowd needs to learn to use their words correctly. "Infanticide" is the intentional murder of a living, breathing, infant. Not the termination of an early pregnancy.

Whatever absurd semantic games you try to play do not change the truth. Abortion is homicide. It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And absent circumstances to require it, comparable to circumstances under which homicide is otherwise justifiable, it is an evil act, that ought not ever be tolerated by any civilized society.

It is not a semantic game. Words have e meanings. You want arbitrarily change them.

Infant: very young child or baby. Prior to bith it is a fetus, embryo, zygote....

It's a semantic game when you want to use colloquial terms after birth and medical terms before, and pretend the medical terms mean "not a baby".

No. It's not semantics. It's accuracy. What you call "colloquial" terms are scientific terms accurately describing phases of development. What do you fail to understand about that? You don't get to create your own definitions just because the real ones don't suit you.

You don't get to cherrrypick definitions either. . . But you keep trying to do just that.

Sweetheart - my definitions are accurate.

No child prior to birth, is called an "infant" - ever. You're false claim of infanticide is exactly that - an attempt at emotional manipulation by deliberately misusing definitions.

 

[Coyote]

If you are a blind supporter of either party this is what you support also.

Civilians Killed & Wounded | Costs of War

Are you suggesting that (mostly unavoidable) war atrocities are somehow justification for an acceptance abortions?

It would seem, rather, that what is suggested is that protesting against abortion obligates protesting slaughter of civilians.

Obligates. . .

Right.

But not the other way around?

Why doesn't your (supposed) outrage over children killed in war not also "obligate" you to fight abortion?

That knife cuts both ways.

There is no comparison between terminating a pregnancy and "murdering a child". Women have the God-given right to decide when and if, we are going to have a baby, and screw any man who would take away our right to determine when and if we are going to have a baby.

The ways and means of avoiding having an abortion, if you believe that having an abortion is wrong, including, but not limited to, keep it in your pants if you are a man, and for women who think abortion is wrong, dont have an abortion. This isn't a matter of don't steal something, because forcing a woman to parent a child she cannot afford or doesn't want, never turns out well for either the mother or the child.

You want children to exist, to what end? You don't want to pay to feed, house or educate these children, so why are you so desperate for these children to be born? If you helped women take care of these children, they would be in a better position to welcome these babies.

My youngest daughter says that many young women of her generation are refusing to have children at all. Child care and the cost of raising a child is so high, that young women feel they will never have any quality of life at all if they have a child. Many are getting their tubes tied in their 20's before ohaving children.

Biology 101 newsflash for you. . .

If a woman is pregnant, she already HAS a child.

Whether she might not want it or not. . . And guess what!?!

Children have a right to the equal protections of our laws.

So do pregnant women.