"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points

[Dana7360]

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

It may be based on someone's religion but it's not based on anything that comes from the christian bible.

The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. It's right there in the book of genesis. However, like the constitution. these people have never read the bible.

If life begins at conception then they need to explain ectopic pregnancy. There is no life in that fertilized egg and never will be. The only results from an ectopic pregnancy is either the woman dies or she has an abortion.

 

[Flopper]

Now let me get this straight. You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.

If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate. Maybe both.

I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories. They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic. And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.

…and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.

I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus. Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs. Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years. The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks. It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week. When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion. The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want. Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.

 

[buttercup]

If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder.

Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate.

I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive.

Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical.

You think we are involved in a debate. We are not. I'm simply stating REALITY. Tell me how I am mistaken about REALITY.

If you can tell me how you can prevent me from having an abortion, I will engage with you. Because MY only concern is protection of my body from folks like you who want to impose their will on said body and/or what is inside of it. YOUR concern about the burden of proving the rights or non-rights of a fetus is YOUR concern.

Bottom line, we will not ever agree or be willing to compromise in any way with each other. You'll have to be content not having control of what's inside my body. You have no other choice, no matter how much you stomp your feet, name call OR hold your breath.

You're being schooled by a 17 year old and too stupid to realize it. Everyone one of your posts is the same shit reworded. Don't breed...for the sake of the child, humanity and society.

As for debate? Pumpkin would crush your stupid ass like a grape. Run along now, you're exposed and won't be taken serious by the regs on the forum

And this is usually what happens when folks like you realize you actually CAN'T stop a woman from having an abortion.

Folks get defensive and upset, name call, rant and rave, carrying on like a hyena railing against their inability to force a woman NOT to abort a baby.

And you still don't win. But Pumpkin is welcome to keep trying, lol.

So at what point should a woman not be allowed to end her Childs life! Should the right extend beyond the womb? At what point would you consider it the illegal taking of life? I looking to see how you justify your position! "Because I can" seems to be your answer so far are you that shallow? Just wondering?

My position is any late term abortion is between a woman and her doctor. Late term abortion is exceedingly rare. I trust a women and her doctor to make the correct decision.

Aha. Now a little truth is starting to come out. Without directly stating it, it appears that you "trust" that a woman and her doctor would make the right decision... which implies that in some cases, it may not be right. Or am I misrepresenting your view? In other words, do you think it's right in ANY circumstance? Do you think it would be right to kill a full-term, kicking preborn baby who is just minutes away from delivery, for no reason except that the mother wanted to kill him and he was still inside her? My body my choice, remember? Let's see if you have the intellectual honesty and courage to stand by your sole 'argument.'

 

[Leo123]

I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus. Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs. Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years. The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks. It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week. When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion. The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want. Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children to care for.

Or not.....

 

[NotYourBody]

Ethics are objective and consistent. The reason you've failed to make any argument against "My ethics" is because arguing that murdering an innocent person is ethical means that anyone and everyone can be killed, and it's fully legitimate. That's why I referred to what you're stating as "Egoism", it's the belief that all that matters is a person's ego, and that everything else is a spook. Pointing out that the human being you desire to murder, or support murdering, is a self-owning agent with rights of its own, is not an attempt to force control over you. Your hostility towards this fact is merely a result of your inability to argue against it.

Once again, I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm interested in presenting an argument that you can't refute, for the audience. The fact that you don't care about ethics, or the rights of others, doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against you, in fact, it only makes me want to make an example of you even more.

Lack of control? I made the conscious decision to come here and reply to your post, and have no desire to prevent myself from doing so. This isn't a matter of a lack of self control, nor wanting to present my "judgment" to you. It's a matter of desiring to present objective ethics to an audience, and show what I've shown numerous other times before; That your position is inconsistent, fallacious, and unethical.

Of course I can. I can present your position clearly, while you merely state "I can murder people and you can't stop me!", so in your case, the bar is pretty low for presenting your position. It's not hard to articulate that; The belief is that your rights take priority over others, and that compared to your desires, human life is inconsequential. In fact, that may be too well-articulated, since I highly doubt you've even brought your position to its logical conclusion.

The fact is that I don't "need" moral superiority, I just know that I have a better understanding of ethics than you do, so I never have a fear of losing any argument to someone like you. People like you are like toys, and debate is like my playground. Your arguments, and the arguments of people like you are so weak and flawed, that I could do this while splitting my attention between several other tasks. Right now, I'm playing Moekuri, reading Storm of Swords, and typing this post.

Hmm. What would they do without me to explain it to them? Probably not consider the ethical implications of your arguments. Deontological Ethics aren't exactly known to everyone, most people probably think that ethics are dependent on geographical location, because they rarely think for themselves.

If you didn't want your actions and lack of ethics to be scrutinized on a forum, you wouldn't be here. Then again, I doubt you even considered that, given how shallow your positions seem to be in the first place. You know, what you've presented so far. Your username even focuses on this one subject, as if murdering innocent human beings is the most important thing to you. Anyone else, I'd suggest is trying really hard not to consider the possibility that they're a monster, but you don't seem bothered by that fact whatsoever, you're busy flinging refuted strawmen over and over.

No.

I will not let you drag me into an argument that I just do not care about. If you are not after control of my body or what is inside of it, we have no problem.

I don't care about anything else you said because it's not relevant to my life.

Reality = control of my body is my own. If you want to argue that, I'm all in.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Ethics are objective and consistent. The reason you've failed to make any argument against "My ethics" is because arguing that murdering an innocent person is ethical means that anyone and everyone can be killed, and it's fully legitimate. That's why I referred to what you're stating as "Egoism", it's the belief that all that matters is a person's ego, and that everything else is a spook. Pointing out that the human being you desire to murder, or support murdering, is a self-owning agent with rights of its own, is not an attempt to force control over you. Your hostility towards this fact is merely a result of your inability to argue against it.

Once again, I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm interested in presenting an argument that you can't refute, for the audience. The fact that you don't care about ethics, or the rights of others, doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against you, in fact, it only makes me want to make an example of you even more.

Lack of control? I made the conscious decision to come here and reply to your post, and have no desire to prevent myself from doing so. This isn't a matter of a lack of self control, nor wanting to present my "judgment" to you. It's a matter of desiring to present objective ethics to an audience, and show what I've shown numerous other times before; That your position is inconsistent, fallacious, and unethical.

Of course I can. I can present your position clearly, while you merely state "I can murder people and you can't stop me!", so in your case, the bar is pretty low for presenting your position. It's not hard to articulate that; The belief is that your rights take priority over others, and that compared to your desires, human life is inconsequential. In fact, that may be too well-articulated, since I highly doubt you've even brought your position to its logical conclusion.

The fact is that I don't "need" moral superiority, I just know that I have a better understanding of ethics than you do, so I never have a fear of losing any argument to someone like you. People like you are like toys, and debate is like my playground. Your arguments, and the arguments of people like you are so weak and flawed, that I could do this while splitting my attention between several other tasks. Right now, I'm playing Moekuri, reading Storm of Swords, and typing this post.

Hmm. What would they do without me to explain it to them? Probably not consider the ethical implications of your arguments. Deontological Ethics aren't exactly known to everyone, most people probably think that ethics are dependent on geographical location, because they rarely think for themselves.

If you didn't want your actions and lack of ethics to be scrutinized on a forum, you wouldn't be here. Then again, I doubt you even considered that, given how shallow your positions seem to be in the first place. You know, what you've presented so far. Your username even focuses on this one subject, as if murdering innocent human beings is the most important thing to you. Anyone else, I'd suggest is trying really hard not to consider the possibility that they're a monster, but you don't seem bothered by that fact whatsoever, you're busy flinging refuted strawmen over and over.

No.

I will not let you drag me into an argument that I just do not care about. If you are not after control of my body or what is inside of it, we have no problem.

I don't care about anything else you said because it's not relevant to my life.

Reality = control of my body is my own. If you want to argue that, I'm all in.

You're only refusing to debate because the topic was never control of your body, it was that you're declaring legitimacy in murdering others on the basis of being capable. You're repeatedly stating that strawman of yours because you want to transform the subject into it.

This is also why you're ignoring the ethical argument, and merely stating that you can. It's pretty pathetic that you're only here to reiterate that, over and over, as if it's some profound argument, despite leaping over all of the actual ethics involved in the subject matter. In other words, it's anti-thought.

 

[NotYourBody]

She hasn't and apparently can't justify her position. If she was logically consistent and intellectually honest, she would concede that by her logic there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term preborn baby just minutes away from delivery, simply because he's still in the mother's body (my body my choice!) But she won't admit that, so she avoided that question, numerous times. Since I gave her tons of opportunities to deny she supports infanticide, and she won't, I'm just going to assume she supports it. Which all sane people know is as heinous and evil as it gets.

But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.

Correct. I care about control of my own body and what is inside of it. That is my priority. Have I not made that 100% clear?

I'm not going to argue against your priority, lol. You don't even get a seat at the table regarding my body.

 

[NotYourBody]

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

It may be based on someone's religion but it's not based on anything that comes from the christian bible.

The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. It's right there in the book of genesis. However, like the constitution. these people have never read the bible.

If life begins at conception then they need to explain ectopic pregnancy. There is no life in that fertilized egg and never will be. The only results from an ectopic pregnancy is either the woman dies or she has an abortion.

Ethics are objective and consistent. The reason you've failed to make any argument against "My ethics" is because arguing that murdering an innocent person is ethical means that anyone and everyone can be killed, and it's fully legitimate. That's why I referred to what you're stating as "Egoism", it's the belief that all that matters is a person's ego, and that everything else is a spook. Pointing out that the human being you desire to murder, or support murdering, is a self-owning agent with rights of its own, is not an attempt to force control over you. Your hostility towards this fact is merely a result of your inability to argue against it.

Once again, I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm interested in presenting an argument that you can't refute, for the audience. The fact that you don't care about ethics, or the rights of others, doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against you, in fact, it only makes me want to make an example of you even more.

Lack of control? I made the conscious decision to come here and reply to your post, and have no desire to prevent myself from doing so. This isn't a matter of a lack of self control, nor wanting to present my "judgment" to you. It's a matter of desiring to present objective ethics to an audience, and show what I've shown numerous other times before; That your position is inconsistent, fallacious, and unethical.

Of course I can. I can present your position clearly, while you merely state "I can murder people and you can't stop me!", so in your case, the bar is pretty low for presenting your position. It's not hard to articulate that; The belief is that your rights take priority over others, and that compared to your desires, human life is inconsequential. In fact, that may be too well-articulated, since I highly doubt you've even brought your position to its logical conclusion.

The fact is that I don't "need" moral superiority, I just know that I have a better understanding of ethics than you do, so I never have a fear of losing any argument to someone like you. People like you are like toys, and debate is like my playground. Your arguments, and the arguments of people like you are so weak and flawed, that I could do this while splitting my attention between several other tasks. Right now, I'm playing Moekuri, reading Storm of Swords, and typing this post.

Hmm. What would they do without me to explain it to them? Probably not consider the ethical implications of your arguments. Deontological Ethics aren't exactly known to everyone, most people probably think that ethics are dependent on geographical location, because they rarely think for themselves.

If you didn't want your actions and lack of ethics to be scrutinized on a forum, you wouldn't be here. Then again, I doubt you even considered that, given how shallow your positions seem to be in the first place. You know, what you've presented so far. Your username even focuses on this one subject, as if murdering innocent human beings is the most important thing to you. Anyone else, I'd suggest is trying really hard not to consider the possibility that they're a monster, but you don't seem bothered by that fact whatsoever, you're busy flinging refuted strawmen over and over.

No.

I will not let you drag me into an argument that I just do not care about. If you are not after control of my body or what is inside of it, we have no problem.

I don't care about anything else you said because it's not relevant to my life.

Reality = control of my body is my own. If you want to argue that, I'm all in.

You're only refusing to debate because the topic was never control of your body, it was that you're declaring legitimacy in murdering others on the basis of being capable. You're repeatedly stating that strawman of yours because you want to transform the subject into it.

This is also why you're ignoring the ethical argument, and merely stating that you can. It's pretty pathetic that you're only here to reiterate that, over and over, as if it's some profound argument, despite leaping over all of the actual ethics involved in the subject matter. In other words, it's anti-thought.

I DO have control of my body and everything inside of it. Because of that FACT, I don't need to debate you. I don't need a profound argument. I don't need to transform the subject. I don't need your permission to state my position over and over. I don't need to argue against you. Honestly I don't even read your entire posts. I don't have the patience for your bloviation.

I am merely here to tell you, because you need to be aware, that all your nonsense will not change anything for a pro-choice woman who has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy. None at all.

 

[buttercup]

She hasn't and apparently can't justify her position. If she was logically consistent and intellectually honest, she would concede that by her logic there's nothing wrong with killing a full-term preborn baby just minutes away from delivery, simply because he's still in the mother's body (my body my choice!) But she won't admit that, so she avoided that question, numerous times. Since I gave her tons of opportunities to deny she supports infanticide, and she won't, I'm just going to assume she supports it. Which all sane people know is as heinous and evil as it gets.

But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.

Correct. I care about control of my own body and what is inside of it. That is my priority. Have I not made that 100% clear?

I'm not going to argue against your priority, lol. You don't even get a seat at the table regarding my body.

As Pumpkin Row pointed out, you have poor reading skills. I wasn't arguing against your priority, I just informed the guy who wanted to discuss this with you that you don't care about anything but yourself. And you just admitted I was correct.

I don't have to argue against selfishness, apathy and a might makes right mindset. All the normal, sane people out there know those are horrible qualities, they aren't proud of them, as you seem to be.

 

[NotYourBody]

As Pumpkin Row pointed out, you have poor reading skills. I wasn't arguing against your priority, I just informed the guy who wanted to discuss this with you that you don't care about anything but yourself. And you just admitted I was correct.

I don't have to argue against selfishness, apathy and a might makes right mindset. All the normal, sane people out there know those are horrible qualities, they aren't proud of them, as you seem to be.

Oh I see. The folks on here must be some special kind of ignorant if they can't decipher my posts without your and Pumpkin Pie's help.

It's not that complicated.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

Since life can’t begin at any point without conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.

Great logic. Not

Conception can not take place without a sperm. Therefore, according to you., life begins at sperm production & every time we do not ensure every sperm gets to be part of conception, we are aborting babies.

Don’t be an idiot. Conception requires sperm but by itself, sperm is not the beginning of life. However, conception is.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.

Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?

Will their next attack be directed at:

Gays
blacks
Muslims
Hispanics

We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.

But what group of Americans will they attack next?

Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who Republicans are going to attack next?

What children have the Democrats killed?

What group of Americans have Republicans attacked?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

Since life can’t begin at any point without conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.

Again, not at issue.

At issue is the wrongheaded notion that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which as a fact of law it does not; an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, where the protected liberty of the woman is paramount.

Religious dogma or subjective personal belief might hold that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which is perfectly appropriate, where the right to privacy ensures that each citizen is at liberty to practice and express his beliefs.

But religious dogma or subjective personal belief neither justifies violating a woman’s right to privacy nor justifies the state compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide whether to have a child or not, not the state.

As I told someone already, I don’t know the answer as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with ending the life of a child but conception is the beginning of the life process. Once the process begins, personhood is assured at some point whether it’s at conception or not.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

Since life can’t begin at any point without conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.

Did God tell you that? Because if God didn't, you are lying, while you have no scientific proof when life begins, nor does anyone else.

First of all, I’m an atheist. Secondly, if no one knows when life begins then how do you know I’m lying?

 

[NotYourBody]

Aha. Now a little truth is starting to come out. Without directly stating it, it appears that you "trust" that a woman and her doctor would make the right decision... which implies that in some cases, it may not be right. Or am I misrepresenting your view? In other words, do you think it's right in ANY circumstance? Do you think it would be right to kill a full-term, kicking preborn baby who is just minutes away from delivery, for no reason except that the mother wanted to kill him and he was still inside her? My body my choice, remember? Let's see if you have the intellectual honesty and courage to stand by your sole 'argument.'

Again, I am not validating YOUR arguments.

I stated my position on late term abortions. A decision between a woman and her doctor regarding her late term pregnancy is still her decision. No control has been taken away from her. I trust the woman and her doctor to do the right thing. The rest is not my business.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was? Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?

Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.

And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.

If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.

So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.

I certainly hope so.

So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.

It will be if left alone.

 

[The Purge]

 

[NotYourBody]

So now the fetus is not just a baby but a child.

It will be if left alone.

Not necessarily. There are many things that cause the death of a fetus besides abortion.

 

[The Purge]

 

[NotYourBody]

If a man does not know if the woman he is putting his unwrapped penis inside is pro-choice, maybe he should ask first.

Or perhaps he should be more careful where he puts that unwrapped penis.