Pregnant Women Lose Civil Rights

[Derideo_Te]

Claiming crap that can be disproven will bite you in the butt every time.

How ironic coming from someone who cannot substantiate his own ludicrous claims.

 

[Mertex]

“I want to know why you can't be happy to be free to live your life as you choose. You want and need to take that freedom from everyone else and force everyone to live the way you do.”

Because as is common to most authoritarian conservatives they're afraid of diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty. Most on the right feel the need to compel conformity to justify rightist dogma, where dissent undermines that dogma, which can't be tolerated.

Harry, the translator ring for this one

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

Yes, there is a massive difference......first of all, the fetus is not a person, the mother is and to force her to carry the baby to term even if it kills her is using government to control people's choices, something that you all claim you don't want. The problem is that you only want government to step in when it suit your beliefs and wants.

 

[Derideo_Te]

“I want to know why you can't be happy to be free to live your life as you choose. You want and need to take that freedom from everyone else and force everyone to live the way you do.”

Because as is common to most authoritarian conservatives they're afraid of diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty. Most on the right feel the need to compel conformity to justify rightist dogma, where dissent undermines that dogma, which can't be tolerated.

Harry, the translator ring for this one

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

 

[hadit]

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

whatever helps you all sleep at night after you have your child sucked out of you vagina and womb

I believe that there are a lot more long-term psychological and emotional consequences to abortion than the pro-aborts care to talk about.

And, like you pro-lifers care so much about people.....why you choose a fetus over an adult, and why you insist that women give birth to grotesquely deformed and medically burdened babies so that then you can deny them welfare and food stamps and complain that they want free stuff.

And you know this about me personally, how again? I noticed, BTW, that you leaped immediately to the extreme minority of cases and ignored the majority of abortions that are done to completely healthy developing babies.

 

[RKMBrown]

Harry, the translator ring for this one

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

Yes, there is a massive difference......first of all, the fetus is not a person, the mother is and to force her to carry the baby to term even if it kills her is using government to control people's choices, something that you all claim you don't want. The problem is that you only want government to step in when it suit your beliefs and wants.

Is that what makes you sleep better at night, thinking the 60million dead babies were not real? If they weren't people what were they, aliens?

You misunderstand, yes I am for liberty. But my liberty ends the moment it takes the life of another human. Liberty is not the liberty to kill people.

 

[RKMBrown]

Harry, the translator ring for this one

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

What is it they are killing then, an alien from mars? What "species" are these aliens?

 

[hadit]

Harry, the translator ring for this one

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

Then what exactly is being killed? There's a heartbeat, active brain waves, etc at very early stages of development. Whatever it is that you imagine is in there has to die, or the abortion is unsuccessful.

 

[RKMBrown]

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

Then what exactly is being killed? There's a heartbeat, active brain waves, etc at very early stages of development. Whatever it is that you imagine is in there has to die, or the abortion is unsuccessful.

It's not an abortion, is a free choice.... rolls eyes. Yeah and the 911 terrorists were just defending their homeland.

 

[hadit]

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

whatever helps you all sleep at night after you have your child sucked out of you vagina and womb

I believe that there are a lot more long-term psychological and emotional consequences to abortion than the pro-aborts care to talk about.

absolutely there is. but the abortion lovers calling it a "civil right" doesn't want to talk about that. They don't care the guilt and long term suffering a WOMAN can go through after they have one

To make matters worse, they want to be able to take an underage minor girl to have a surgical procedure performed on her by a stranger, than dump her on Mom and Dad's doorstep to deal with that suffering, all without even telling Mom and Dad what happened. They don't care as long as the sacrament is observed.

 

[Mertex]

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

No one is saying that the zygote/fetus is a growth or tumor on the mother, but to say that it is not part of the mother's body is ridiculous. The zygote/fetus, attached to the mother by the umbilical cord and feeding of her body cannot survive outside of the mother's body for a time.....usually the time that most states approve elective abortions. Your use of semantics to try and prove whatever it is you are trying to prove is inane.


Nutrition in the womb is the process that delivers to the fetus what it needs to grow and develop into a healthy baby. A fetus receives its nutrition from two sources. The first source of nutrients is from the mother’s diet before and during pregnancy. Most people understand this.

The fetus receives the nutrition it needs to grow not only from what the mother eats during pregnancy but from the mothers own body.

The least known and probably more important source of nutrients is the mother’s body. The mother’s turnover and her diet work in harmony to provide nutrition in the womb through the placenta.

The placenta, which is part of the baby that attaches it to the womb, captures nutrients from the mother’s blood and transports them to the baby. The growth of the placenta and the food it supplies are the key to health for a lifetime.

A baby that is undernourished may try to compensate by expanding the surface of its placenta to extract more nutrients from the mother.

Nutrition In The Womb

Yeah and liberals receive their nutrients from my labors.

Sure we do.....that is why there are more rich liberals now in the US, because they took all your money..
The only problem with this link/source, is the author thinks Libs are the ones spreading the myth, and here you are, spreading the myth. Time for some of you to do some research........

This, by a conservative:

A big myth being perpetrated all over America by liberals is that “rich” people are all Republican businesspeople and conservative corporate fatcats who have power over the rest of us. This is nonsense. The fact is that “conservatives” are statistically lower on the income scale than Democrats, and Republican business interests long ago lost control of the nation’s wealth. This is happening as the nation itself gets poorer, while liberals are getting richer and richer.
ttp://The Liberal Rich Get Richer RedState

 

[RKMBrown]

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

No one is saying that the zygote/fetus is a growth or tumor on the mother, but to say that it is not part of the mother's body is ridiculous. The zygote/fetus, attached to the mother by the umbilical cord and feeding of her body cannot survive outside of the mother's body for a time.....usually the time that most states approve elective abortions. Your use of semantics to try and prove whatever it is you are trying to prove is inane.


Nutrition in the womb is the process that delivers to the fetus what it needs to grow and develop into a healthy baby. A fetus receives its nutrition from two sources. The first source of nutrients is from the mother’s diet before and during pregnancy. Most people understand this.

The fetus receives the nutrition it needs to grow not only from what the mother eats during pregnancy but from the mothers own body.

The least known and probably more important source of nutrients is the mother’s body. The mother’s turnover and her diet work in harmony to provide nutrition in the womb through the placenta.

The placenta, which is part of the baby that attaches it to the womb, captures nutrients from the mother’s blood and transports them to the baby. The growth of the placenta and the food it supplies are the key to health for a lifetime.

A baby that is undernourished may try to compensate by expanding the surface of its placenta to extract more nutrients from the mother.

Nutrition In The Womb

Yeah and liberals receive their nutrients from my labors.

Sure we do.....that is why there are more rich liberals now in the US, because they took all your money..
The only problem with this link/source, is the author thinks Libs are the ones spreading the myth, and here you are, spreading the myth. Time for some of you to do some research........

This, by a conservative:

A big myth being perpetrated all over America by liberals is that “rich” people are all Republican businesspeople and conservative corporate fatcats who have power over the rest of us. This is nonsense. The fact is that “conservatives” are statistically lower on the income scale than Democrats, and Republican business interests long ago lost control of the nation’s wealth. This is happening as the nation itself gets poorer, while liberals are getting richer and richer.
ttp://The Liberal Rich Get Richer RedState

See, the problem is you assume when someone says liberal they mean "only" liberals, and when someone says abortions they mean "every single abortion even those that are necessary to save the life of the mother." But really you are just quoting people out of context and making stuff up right?

 

[Mertex]

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

Yes, there is a massive difference......first of all, the fetus is not a person, the mother is and to force her to carry the baby to term even if it kills her is using government to control people's choices, something that you all claim you don't want. The problem is that you only want government to step in when it suit your beliefs and wants.

Is that what makes you sleep better at night, thinking the 60million dead babies were not real? If they weren't people what were they, aliens?

Don't cry to me about 60 million babies which may have just been a clump of cells at the time of the abortion when you and your party dismisses the thousands of babies that are already on this planet and are dying of hunger and lack of health care. You want to repeal Obamacare and deny the millions who are now able to have real healthcare regardless of whether they live or die. Your party also labels everyone on welfare as lazy and would gladly remove food from millions of babies that depend on food stamps for their meals.

You misunderstand, yes I am for liberty. But my liberty ends the moment it takes the life of another human. Liberty is not the liberty to kill people.

How does denying a pregnant woman who has been told her pregnancy will most likely end her life, the choice of an abortion, not the same as saying you don't care if she lives or dies?
That is the liberty you want, to be able to save a fetus at the expense of the mother's life? Why is a fetus more important to you than the mother?

 

[Mertex]

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

What is it they are killing then, an alien from mars? What "species" are these aliens?

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

 

[RKMBrown]

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

What is it they are killing then, an alien from mars? What "species" are these aliens?

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

 

[Mertex]

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

Then what exactly is being killed? There's a heartbeat, active brain waves, etc at very early stages of development. Whatever it is that you imagine is in there has to die, or the abortion is unsuccessful.

Your argument is ridiculous. All states have effective laws in place already regarding abortion. Elective abortions ar

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

No one is saying that the zygote/fetus is a growth or tumor on the mother, but to say that it is not part of the mother's body is ridiculous. The zygote/fetus, attached to the mother by the umbilical cord and feeding of her body cannot survive outside of the mother's body for a time.....usually the time that most states approve elective abortions. Your use of semantics to try and prove whatever it is you are trying to prove is inane.


Nutrition in the womb is the process that delivers to the fetus what it needs to grow and develop into a healthy baby. A fetus receives its nutrition from two sources. The first source of nutrients is from the mother’s diet before and during pregnancy. Most people understand this.

The fetus receives the nutrition it needs to grow not only from what the mother eats during pregnancy but from the mothers own body.

The least known and probably more important source of nutrients is the mother’s body. The mother’s turnover and her diet work in harmony to provide nutrition in the womb through the placenta.

The placenta, which is part of the baby that attaches it to the womb, captures nutrients from the mother’s blood and transports them to the baby. The growth of the placenta and the food it supplies are the key to health for a lifetime.

A baby that is undernourished may try to compensate by expanding the surface of its placenta to extract more nutrients from the mother.

Nutrition In The Womb

Yeah and liberals receive their nutrients from my labors.

Sure we do.....that is why there are more rich liberals now in the US, because they took all your money..
The only problem with this link/source, is the author thinks Libs are the ones spreading the myth, and here you are, spreading the myth. Time for some of you to do some research........

This, by a conservative:

A big myth being perpetrated all over America by liberals is that “rich” people are all Republican businesspeople and conservative corporate fatcats who have power over the rest of us. This is nonsense. The fact is that “conservatives” are statistically lower on the income scale than Democrats, and Republican business interests long ago lost control of the nation’s wealth. This is happening as the nation itself gets poorer, while liberals are getting richer and richer.
ttp://The Liberal Rich Get Richer RedState

See, the problem is you assume when someone says liberal they mean "only" liberals, and when someone says abortions they mean "every single abortion even those that are necessary to save the life of the mother." But really you are just quoting people out of context and making stuff up right?

No, you are. Which liberals receive their nutrients from your labor? And, what abortions are you referring to, then? All states in the United States already have laws in place that restrict elective abortions to the first-trimester.....except in the case of rape or incest and saving the life of the mother. So what exactly are you arguing for against abortion if you agree with what is already in place?

 

[RKMBrown]

No one is talking about taking away your all's right to kill your own offspring. But to come off saying it's a frikken Civil right even you know that is sick and stupid

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

Yes, there is a massive difference......first of all, the fetus is not a person, the mother is and to force her to carry the baby to term even if it kills her is using government to control people's choices, something that you all claim you don't want. The problem is that you only want government to step in when it suit your beliefs and wants.

Is that what makes you sleep better at night, thinking the 60million dead babies were not real? If they weren't people what were they, aliens?

Don't cry to me about 60 million babies which may have just been a clump of cells at the time of the abortion when you and your party dismisses the thousands of babies that are already on this planet and are dying of hunger and lack of health care. You want to repeal Obamacare and deny the millions who are now able to have real healthcare regardless of whether they live or die. Your party also labels everyone on welfare as lazy and would gladly remove food from millions of babies that depend on food stamps for their meals.

You misunderstand, yes I am for liberty. But my liberty ends the moment it takes the life of another human. Liberty is not the liberty to kill people.

How does denying a pregnant woman who has been told her pregnancy will most likely end her life, the choice of an abortion, not the same as saying you don't care if she lives or dies?
That is the liberty you want, to be able to save a fetus at the expense of the mother's life? Why is a fetus more important to you than the mother?

Why are you making up BULLSHIT LIES like saying I want to kill mothers by forcing them to carry to term? Are you mentally unstable?

To my knowledge NOT ONE HUMAN ON THE PLANET OTHER THAN LIBTARDS ARE PROPOSING ANYONE WANTS TO KILL MOTHERS.

To clarify for you when one of two lives are at stake, then a decision or arbitration must be made. Saying liberty is not the liberty to kill someone does not mean you have to kill someone to save another person's life. Your example is ridiculous. Self defense is not the same as murder.

 

[depotoo]

Explain exactly what my ludicrous claims are? The fact that some states do not require the same rigorous inspections of abortion offices or clinics as other surgical centers?
You guys must be related to Margaret Sanger. Either that or you just feel the 70's motto of 'if it feels good, do it', to hell with the consequences. Responsibility of ones actions be damned.

Claiming crap that can be disproven will bite you in the butt every time.

How ironic coming from someone who cannot substantiate his own ludicrous claims.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

What is it they are killing then, an alien from mars? What "species" are these aliens?

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

Ever heard of Cystic Fibrosis? Without affordable healthcare that is a killer for babies. Prior to the ACA parents went into bankruptcy trying to pay the hospitals bills and when the money was gone their babies died.

45,000 people die for lack of healthcare in this nation each and every year and only a fool would assume that none of them are babies and children.

Read and learn!

Mortality and lack of health insurance Science-Based Medicine

The underlying longitudinal studies on which IOM relied did not specify the impact of insurance coverage on mortality by 10-year age groups. Rather, they documented the relationship between insurance and mortality across the sum total of all surveyed age groups. The IOM’s methodology implicitly assumed that insurance reduces mortality by the identical percentage for each 10-year age band, which the underlying research did not show. More grounded in the research would be an application of differential mortality estimates to all adults age 25–64, as was done for those longitudinal studies, rather than separately to each age group within this range. For 2000–06, this alternative approach raises the estimated number of excess deaths by an average of 20.5 percent a year.

There are 13 recent studies on the health effects of health insurance coverage for children, including 5 studies that used quasi-experimental methods (Aizer, 2007; Bermudez and Baker, 2005; Cousineau et al., 2008; Currie et al., 2008; Howell et al., 2008a). These studies suggest that health insurance is beneficial for children in several ways, resulting in more timely diagnosis of serious health conditions, fewer avoidable hospitalizations, better asthma outcomes, and fewer missed school days

 

[Dana7360]

Neither is any more or less human than the other, so if you want to argue semantics, it seems to be a rather weak argument.

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

No one is saying that the zygote/fetus is a growth or tumor on the mother, but to say that it is not part of the mother's body is ridiculous. The zygote/fetus, attached to the mother by the umbilical cord and feeding of her body cannot survive outside of the mother's body for a time.....usually the time that most states approve elective abortions. Your use of semantics to try and prove whatever it is you are trying to prove is inane.


Nutrition in the womb is the process that delivers to the fetus what it needs to grow and develop into a healthy baby. A fetus receives its nutrition from two sources. The first source of nutrients is from the mother’s diet before and during pregnancy. Most people understand this.

The fetus receives the nutrition it needs to grow not only from what the mother eats during pregnancy but from the mothers own body.

The least known and probably more important source of nutrients is the mother’s body. The mother’s turnover and her diet work in harmony to provide nutrition in the womb through the placenta.

The placenta, which is part of the baby that attaches it to the womb, captures nutrients from the mother’s blood and transports them to the baby. The growth of the placenta and the food it supplies are the key to health for a lifetime.

A baby that is undernourished may try to compensate by expanding the surface of its placenta to extract more nutrients from the mother.

Nutrition In The Womb

I can't believe that conservatives don't know this. But then, they think a fertilized egg is a person.

That blood from the woman is what is first giving nourishment to that fertilized egg. There's no umbilical cord. It has not been developed yet. That fertilized egg exists solely on the blood in the lining of the uterus. Which is why the uterus becomes thick and the lining of blood becomes thicker. It also actually diverts blood from the woman to the fertilized egg. All nutrients and food will go to that fertilized egg first then to the woman. If there's not enough for the egg, it will take it from what already exists in the woman. Which is why some women end up losing teeth, hair and other problems from pregnancy.

The fact that they don't know any of this is another reason why I don't believe they have any place in this debate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Explain exactly what my ludicrous claims are? The fact that some states do not require the same rigorous inspections of abortion offices or clinics as other surgical centers?

This is your ludicrous allegation;

DEPOTOO SAID: ↑
Why is there more rigorous inspections of regular clinics than of abortion clinics?

You just repeated the same thing above.

THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO PROVE THIS ALLEGATION IS TRUE NATIONWIDE.

So far all you have managed is to just regurgitate the exceptions.

So either you provide credible links to support your BS or you are simply LYING when you make your ludicrous allegations.

The latter is the most likely case.