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

[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,,,

And you’re an idiot who needs to take a biology class before commenting further.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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,,,

And you’re an idiot who needs to take a biology class before commenting further.

Says the "woman" who has as much scientific knowledge as your average medieval peasant.

 

[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,,,

And you’re an idiot who needs to take a biology class before commenting further.

then what does the mother give birth to if not a human baby??? a goat???

 

[Cecilie1200]

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,,,

And you’re an idiot who needs to take a biology class before commenting further.

then what does the mother give birth to if not a human baby??? a goat???

. . . You might want to consider who you're talking to.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just another male trying to control women's reproductive system.

It's not the woman's reproductive system that is killed by an abortion. It's an innocent human being that dies.

Why not concentrate on pedophiles as most of them are males.

An unrelated issue, being discussed in other threads. I don't think my positions regarding that issue are at all unclear,but they're not relevant here, other than in the general sense that I am certainly much more on the side of innocent children, and much more firmly against those who would abuse them in any way, than you are, or any of those with whom you align. You might want to do something about that beam in your eye,before you fuss about the mote that you think you see in mine.

 

[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,,,

And you’re an idiot who needs to take a biology class before commenting further.

then what does the mother give birth to if not a human baby??? a goat???

. . . You might want to consider who you're talking to.

considering the topic I have to try,,
but thanks for your support,,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why do you think I think it will stop abortion entirely? Can you say, "straw man"?

Nothing will stop abortion completely, any more than you can completely stop other crimes. But certainly, making it clear that it is not something that society is willing to tolerate, imposing appropriate criminal penalties for those engaging in it, and ultimately, removing from free society those inclined to engage in it, will greatly reduce it.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

As a female I personally could never have a willful, voluntary abortion. A miscarriage is a type of natural abortion and are much more frequent than people think, but I am speaking about an abortion as a form of birth control.

Abortion can not and has never been used as birth control.

The definition of birth control is methods that PREVENT pregnancy.

It's impossible to prevent something that has already happened.

Plus, for someone to use it as birth control, they would have to use it every time they got pregnant from sex. Which is impossible.

Here in America we have regulations on abortion. Every state sets regulations on how often a woman can have an abortion. The minimum time is 6 months. It's mostly to protect the woman's fertility. If a woman has too many abortions and are too close together, it scars the lining of the uterus and she is infertile for life.

So if a woman gets pregnant too soon after an abortion, she can't have another one.

Abortion has never been used as birth control.

It's impossible to prevent what has already happened.

Here's the honest and factual definition of birth control from good old Webster's dictionary.

Please learn the honest meanings of words and use those honest meanings.


View attachment 312192

I’m sorry that you disagree with my interpretation of birth control but I would imagine that you know what I mean. I would not have an abortion for any reason which would include a voluntary, controlled ending of that pregnancy in order to prevent birth.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No pregnant woman tells people she has a baby.

I cannot say that I've ever known a women who, at least in the latter stages of pregnancy, did not refer to the child growing within her as a baby, in the present tense; especially if she already has other children, and is discussing with them their new brother or sister.

Of course, there's the archaic term “with child”, which appears to be based on the premise that a woman who is pregnant has an actual child within her, and not some inhuman whatever.

In any event, it's all semantic nonsense. The undeniable scientific fact is that from conception, what exists is a unique living organism of the species Homo sapiens; and that from that point, to the end of its life, will not, at any point, become anything substantially different from what it was a moment before. If there is any point in the human life cycle, where a new human being comes into existence that did not exist before that point, then conception is the only rational event that can be said to mark this point.

We can argue all we want about semantic interpretations, but the science is clear and unambiguous, and does not yield to subjective vagaries of how we choose to use or abuse the language.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Leave them alone and both will die. Both depend on external factors to survive, the egg depends on the mother, the cell depends on the body.

You have now moved into the left wing arena of "say anything" where everything must be spelled out in meticulous detail at its most base level and then due to it's simplicity hope you are too embarrassed to question it [leave them alone meant do not destroy either, but you knew that, you just needed some kind of reply to stay in the game]...what happens when both are nurtured?

If one of my cells becomes cancerous I can choose to have it removed.

because it will never be anything more that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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,,,

And you’re an idiot who needs to take a biology class before commenting further.

then what does the mother give birth to if not a human baby??? a goat???

. . . You might want to consider who you're talking to.

considering the topic I have to try,,
but thanks for your support,,,

Hey, I'm right behind you. Just saying, SHE might actually produce a goat.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Abortion can not and has never been used as birth control.

The definition of birth control is methods that PREVENT pregnancy.

By definition, “birth control” would be anything that prevents or controls birth. Murdering an innocent child still in the womb, would probably meet this definition, as long as you define “birth” in such a manner as to exclude the removal of the pieces of the murdered child.

The more accurate term “contraception” would correctly refer to means that prevent pregnancy, that prevent conception, from occurring in the first place.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I understand why the pro-choice side doesn't trust the pro-life side. Too many being dishonest.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

And you’re an idiot who needs to take a biology class before commenting further.

then what does the mother give birth to if not a human baby??? a goat???

. . . You might want to consider who you're talking to.

considering the topic I have to try,,
but thanks for your support,,,

Hey, I'm right behind you. Just saying, SHE might actually produce a goat.

you have a point,,,

 

[Dana7360]

As a female I personally could never have a willful, voluntary abortion. A miscarriage is a type of natural abortion and are much more frequent than people think, but I am speaking about an abortion as a form of birth control.

Abortion can not and has never been used as birth control.

The definition of birth control is methods that PREVENT pregnancy.

It's impossible to prevent something that has already happened.

Plus, for someone to use it as birth control, they would have to use it every time they got pregnant from sex. Which is impossible.

Here in America we have regulations on abortion. Every state sets regulations on how often a woman can have an abortion. The minimum time is 6 months. It's mostly to protect the woman's fertility. If a woman has too many abortions and are too close together, it scars the lining of the uterus and she is infertile for life.

So if a woman gets pregnant too soon after an abortion, she can't have another one.

Abortion has never been used as birth control.

It's impossible to prevent what has already happened.

Here's the honest and factual definition of birth control from good old Webster's dictionary.

Please learn the honest meanings of words and use those honest meanings.


View attachment 312192

I’m sorry that you disagree with my interpretation of birth control but I would imagine that you know what I mean. I would not have an abortion for any reason which would include a voluntary, controlled ending of that pregnancy in order to prevent birth.

No I don't know what you mean.

I know the meaning of the words birth control and by definition abortion can't be used as birth control.

It's impossible to prevent what has already happened.

I understand you want to use your own definition of those words but that isn't honest.

I posted what the dictionary says the meaning of those words are. Yet you don't accept it.

Which means there is no point to try to discuss this with you.

You aren't dealing with reality or you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let's say you are right about that.

Answer the question.

How does that fact make LEGALIZED ABORTION more acceptable to you?

If your only rebuttal is dishonesty there is no where to go.

I'm pro-life but you know that.

There is nothing dishonest about asking a direct question which you still have yet to answer.

I am unable to answer a dishonest question.

Your inability to give a direct answer to a difficult question does not make the question dishonest.

You are the one claiming to be "pro-life."

And you repeatedly introduce the fact that children are ALSO being killed in ways other than abortion, everytime some argues that abortions VIOLATE a child's rights and therefor, abortions should be criminalized.

So, your comments BEG the fucking question. "How does that fact children are also being killed in other reprehensible ways somehow make LEGALIZED ABORTION more acceptable to you?

An intellectually HONEST "pro-life" person would simply answer that it DOESN'T. Or at least give a REASONABLE explanation abut how it DOES.

None of it is more acceptable to me.

Though you call yourself a pro-lifer, a thorough search of your more than ELEVEN THOUSAND posts, shows you have never once posted ANYTHING to support the idea that you feel that an abortion actually violates the rights of the child killed.

In fact, you defend roe, consistently.

 

[pknopp]

If your only rebuttal is dishonesty there is no where to go.

I'm pro-life but you know that.

There is nothing dishonest about asking a direct question which you still have yet to answer.

I am unable to answer a dishonest question.

Your inability to give a direct answer to a difficult question does not make the question dishonest.

You are the one claiming to be "pro-life."

And you repeatedly introduce the fact that children are ALSO being killed in ways other than abortion, everytime some argues that abortions VIOLATE a child's rights and therefor, abortions should be criminalized.

So, your comments BEG the fucking question. "How does that fact children are also being killed in other reprehensible ways somehow make LEGALIZED ABORTION more acceptable to you?

An intellectually HONEST "pro-life" person would simply answer that it DOESN'T. Or at least give a REASONABLE explanation abut how it DOES.

None of it is more acceptable to me.

Though you call yourself a pro-lifer, a thorough search of your more than ELEVEN THOUSAND posts, you have never once posted ANYTHING to support the idea that you feel that an abortion actually violates the rights of the child killed.

In fact, you defend roe, consistently.

I've long learned that discussing anything with anyone unwilling to discuss anything honestly is a waste of time. That's cool you went through 11,000 posts though. That's impressive.

NO ONE has the right to take the life of another in any circumstance outside of direct self defense. I have said that over and over.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do you think I think it will stop abortion entirely? Can you say, "straw man"?

Nothing will stop abortion completely, any more than you can completely stop other crimes. But certainly, making it clear that it is not something that society is willing to tolerate, imposing appropriate criminal penalties for those engaging in it, and ultimately, removing from free society those inclined to engage in it, will greatly reduce it.

Obviously nothing will ever stop abortion entirely, because it's impossible to ever totally eradicate evil. Doesn't mean you stop fighting.

Meanwhile, none of the promises these dishonest baby-killers made to us with Roe v Wade ever came to pass, and rather than admitting it, they just moved the goalposts and/or lied.

They told us it would end unwanted pregnancies; they skyrocketed. They told us it would end unwanted births; likewise. They told us it would end child abuse and abandonment, because "every child would be a wanted child"; we had to pass laws letting people drop kids off at hospitals and fire stations to keep them from abandoning or killing them.

To hear leftists tell it today, those debates never happened, those promises were never made, they have no idea what we're talking about when we bring it up.

 

[Chuz Life]

I've long learned that discussing anything with anyone unwilling to discuss anything honestly is a waste of time. That's cool you went through 11,000 posts though. That's impressive.

Impressive?

It really doesn't take long to master the use of the advanced mode of the search engine or to learn a few Bolean search commands.

It is hilarious that you accuse others of being dishonest, even as you claim to be pro-life while discouraging, attacking and antagonizing anyone who fights to get Roe overturned and abortion banned.

NO ONE has the right to take the life of another in any circumstance outside of direct self defense. I have said that over and over.

Yet, you have never made the case for or claim that an abortion kills or violates a child's rights. You do, relentlessly try to change the subject, insist that Roe will never be overturned, etc. . . When OTHERS try to make that claim, however.

 

[pknopp]

I've long learned that discussing anything with anyone unwilling to discuss anything honestly is a waste of time. That's cool you went through 11,000 posts though. That's impressive.

Impressive?

It really doesn't take long to master the use of the advanced mode of the search engine or to learn a few Bolean search commands.

It is hilarious that you accuse others of being dishonest, even as you claim to be pro-life while discouraging, attacking and antagonizing anyone who fights to get Roe overturned and abortion banned.

I condemn your refusal to support things that would help women decide to not abort. Something that you (and others) continue to ignore.

NO ONE has the right to take the life of another in any circumstance outside of direct self defense. I have said that over and over.

Yet, you have never made the case for or claim that an abortion kills or violates a child's rights. You do, relentlessly try to change the subject, insist that Roe will never be overturned, etc. . . When OTHERS try to make that claim, however.[/QUOTE]

"Rights" is irrelevant. We believe it is our "right' to drop bombs on innocent women and children. That does not make it right.

IMO no one has the right to take the life of another (born or not) outside of direct self defense.