Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because the fetus hasn't lived in the 'too messed up world' to make their own decision about whether they want to stay in it or not. They weren't given the chance ... because the woman ripped them out and killed them. For someone who is so adamant about choice, you have no problem taking the fetus's choice away.
I'm done arguing this with you. You only see the woman's choice as pertinent and view the unborn human as nothing but an inconvenience. That is quite sad.
And thats exactly why the mother is the final authority on the issue and not what you wish to happen. The fetus is in her body not yours. I don't happen to agree that people put their children in military academies to be raised by the staff. However, its the parents choice not mine.
I notice you completely ignored:
For someone who is so adamant about choice, you have no problem taking the fetus's choice away.
and
You only see the woman's choice as pertinent and view the unborn human as nothing but an inconvenience.
The mindset of the pro-choice crowd is selfish personified.
And thats exactly why the mother is the final authority on the issue and not what you wish to happen. The fetus is in her body not yours. I don't happen to agree that people put their children in military academies to be raised by the staff. However, its the parents choice not mine.
Why are you still here? Why haven't you committed suicide, like millions of rational people every day do?
As a rational person with the ability to form a coherent thought i think life is worth sticking around for. Some people dont. Are you disputing that rational people dont decide to commit suicide?
Why are you still here? Why haven't you committed suicide, like millions of rational people every day do?
As a rational person with the ability to form a coherent thought i think life is worth sticking around for. Some people dont. Are you disputing that rational people dont decide to commit suicide?
No, I'm wondering why you haven't as a service to your fellow man.
In pro-choice world, where a fetus is nothing more than an inconvenience, the assumption is that the fetus would choose to be killed rather than be given a chance at life.
Yes, that is really how they think.
In pro-choice world, where a fetus is nothing more than an inconvenience, the assumption is that the fetus would choose to be killed rather than be given a chance at life.
Yes, that is really how they think.
It's a rationalization.
If you told someone that they should go shoot a baby they would recoil in horror at the suggestion. If you said instead that you would be doing a "surgical procedure" on the baby, that makes it more palatable. If you said you are doing a surgical procedure on a woman that makes it really OK. Who could oppose such a thing? And all you are removing are "a clump of cells", heck it might as well be cancer and you're doing a good deed. When those clump of cells have arms, legs, head etc then you have to dismiss it by saying they probably wanted to die anyway.
This is much the same way that promoters of genocide get their followers to engage in it. They have to demean and dehumanize the victims until killing them is no different from killing mosquitoes.
It helps them sleep at night.
In pro-choice world, where a fetus is nothing more than an inconvenience, the assumption is that the fetus would choose to be killed rather than be given a chance at life.
Yes, that is really how they think.
It's a rationalization.
If you told someone that they should go shoot a baby they would recoil in horror at the suggestion. If you said instead that you would be doing a "surgical procedure" on the baby, that makes it more palatable. If you said you are doing a surgical procedure on a woman that makes it really OK. Who could oppose such a thing? And all you are removing are "a clump of cells", heck it might as well be cancer and you're doing a good deed. When those clump of cells have arms, legs, head etc then you have to dismiss it by saying they probably wanted to die anyway.
This is much the same way that promoters of genocide get their followers to engage in it. They have to demean and dehumanize the victims until killing them is no different from killing mosquitoes.
It helps them sleep at night.
You pro-lifers act as if the baby is outside the womb. Its not. Its in the mothers womb. You totally disregard what the mother carrying the baby wants in favor of what you assume the baby wants or just because you say so. How you skip over this inconvenient truth is mystifying to me. At this point it looks like we should just agree to disagree.
It's a rationalization.
If you told someone that they should go shoot a baby they would recoil in horror at the suggestion. If you said instead that you would be doing a "surgical procedure" on the baby, that makes it more palatable. If you said you are doing a surgical procedure on a woman that makes it really OK. Who could oppose such a thing? And all you are removing are "a clump of cells", heck it might as well be cancer and you're doing a good deed. When those clump of cells have arms, legs, head etc then you have to dismiss it by saying they probably wanted to die anyway.
This is much the same way that promoters of genocide get their followers to engage in it. They have to demean and dehumanize the victims until killing them is no different from killing mosquitoes.
It helps them sleep at night.
You pro-lifers act as if the baby is outside the womb. Its not. Its in the mothers womb. You totally disregard what the mother carrying the baby wants in favor of what you assume the baby wants or just because you say so. How you skip over this inconvenient truth is mystifying to me. At this point it looks like we should just agree to disagree.
So the baby is inside the womb. The baby is outside the womb. What difference does it make, really?
In pro-choice world, where a fetus is nothing more than an inconvenience, the assumption is that the fetus would choose to be killed rather than be given a chance at life.
Yes, that is really how they think.
It's a rationalization.
If you told someone that they should go shoot a baby they would recoil in horror at the suggestion. If you said instead that you would be doing a "surgical procedure" on the baby, that makes it more palatable. If you said you are doing a surgical procedure on a woman that makes it really OK. Who could oppose such a thing? And all you are removing are "a clump of cells", heck it might as well be cancer and you're doing a good deed. When those clump of cells have arms, legs, head etc then you have to dismiss it by saying they probably wanted to die anyway.
This is much the same way that promoters of genocide get their followers to engage in it. They have to demean and dehumanize the victims until killing them is no different from killing mosquitoes.
It helps them sleep at night.
You pro-lifers act as if the baby is outside the womb. Its not. Its in the mothers womb. You totally disregard what the mother carrying the baby wants in favor of what you assume the baby wants or just because you say so. How you skip over this inconvenient truth is mystifying to me. At this point it looks like we should just agree to disagree.
You pro-lifers act as if the baby is outside the womb. Its not. Its in the mothers womb. You totally disregard what the mother carrying the baby wants in favor of what you assume the baby wants or just because you say so. How you skip over this inconvenient truth is mystifying to me. At this point it looks like we should just agree to disagree.
So the baby is inside the womb. The baby is outside the womb. What difference does it make, really?
Is it not obvious to you it is no longer in the woman's womb? At that point its illegal to kill the child. i asked you earlier or maybe it was someone else this question. Is it a moral issue or a legal issue to you?
It's a rationalization.
If you told someone that they should go shoot a baby they would recoil in horror at the suggestion. If you said instead that you would be doing a "surgical procedure" on the baby, that makes it more palatable. If you said you are doing a surgical procedure on a woman that makes it really OK. Who could oppose such a thing? And all you are removing are "a clump of cells", heck it might as well be cancer and you're doing a good deed. When those clump of cells have arms, legs, head etc then you have to dismiss it by saying they probably wanted to die anyway.
This is much the same way that promoters of genocide get their followers to engage in it. They have to demean and dehumanize the victims until killing them is no different from killing mosquitoes.
It helps them sleep at night.
You pro-lifers act as if the baby is outside the womb. Its not. Its in the mothers womb. You totally disregard what the mother carrying the baby wants in favor of what you assume the baby wants or just because you say so. How you skip over this inconvenient truth is mystifying to me. At this point it looks like we should just agree to disagree.
What youre dealing with is the ignorance and extremism of the authoritarian right, where dissent is forbidden and everyone must be compelled to conform to their subjective dogma; conservatives who have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and its case law.
And as authoritarians, conservatives seek to use the power and authority of the state to indeed compel compliance with that subjective dogma.
So the baby is inside the womb. The baby is outside the womb. What difference does it make, really?
Is it not obvious to you it is no longer in the woman's womb? At that point its illegal to kill the child. i asked you earlier or maybe it was someone else this question. Is it a moral issue or a legal issue to you?
What's the difference?
You think life without parole is a sweetheart deal and I'm the idiot?
Compared to the death penalty, yeah.
Guy, you don't cut deals with people who are obviously guilty. You have a nice show trial.
Unless a show trial makes you look worse.
Sez the high school dropout.
Stick to talking about what you know about: college football and Blatz beer.
Is it not obvious to you it is no longer in the woman's womb? At that point its illegal to kill the child. i asked you earlier or maybe it was someone else this question. Is it a moral issue or a legal issue to you?
What's the difference?
Moral doesnt mean legal. Which is it for you or is it both? If its moral only God can handle that. If its legal then the courts have already decided for you.
Compared to the death penalty, yeah.
Guy, you don't cut deals with people who are obviously guilty. You have a nice show trial.
Unless a show trial makes you look worse.
Sez the high school dropout.
Stick to talking about what you know about: college football and Blatz beer.
The fact you have to retire to the retreaded insults proves I've won...
Charging a guy with a meaningless crime with no penalties doesn't advance your case.
What's the difference?
Moral doesnt mean legal. Which is it for you or is it both? If its moral only God can handle that. If its legal then the courts have already decided for you.
Everything the Nazis did was legal.
Moral doesnt mean legal. Which is it for you or is it both? If its moral only God can handle that. If its legal then the courts have already decided for you.
Everything the Nazis did was legal.
Is it always this hard for you to state your position? i thought it was a pretty simple quesition.
Oh, did the person he killed have a name? A date of birth?
Those are the two things I usually look for when you claim to have "murdered" someone.
Didn't have those, must not be a murder.
I guess it's there with those 1000 years he'll spend in jail after he dies.... I mean, I hope they don't leave the corpse out, the other prisoners might complain about the smell.
Everything the Nazis did was legal.
Is it always this hard for you to state your position? i thought it was a pretty simple quesition.
It was a rhetorical question.
The truth is the legality is irrelevant. Everything the Nazis did was legal. That didnt make it right. Same here.
