What has caused 10,307% more deaths but has 68% less google searches then "ban guns"?

[cutter]

Just the FACTS folks!!!

Since 1973 there have been...
54,559,615 abortions
524,279 deaths from fire arms..
Deaths from abortion vs guns since 1973 ? Sifting Reality

That means there were 103 times more abortions then gun deaths.. remember abortions are legal!!!

If 44.7% of the abortions were by women that have already had ONE or more abortions isn't there something that can be done?

• 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and
• 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).
• 44.7% or nearly half by women having abortions have one or more previously.

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

Now a simple measure of how people see these facts...

About 452,000 results for "ban guns" or 207% MORE google searches for "ban guns" then "ban abortions"!

About 147,000 results for "Ban abortions".


So can someone explain why 54,559,615 deaths are less important then 524,279 deaths--- YET fire-arm deaths get 70% more attention!

And when people like me simply ask why are 44.7% of these 54 million deaths done by people that have caused the deaths before are not held responsible?

Ah.. the sanctity of a woman's right!

lets take it one step further, how many of those gun deaths were self inflicted by choice, where the person elected to take their own life vs how many dead babies elected to kill themselves

Take ovt the suicide and police shootings and the rest were probably in Chicago.

 

[Pogo]

lets take it one step further, how many of those gun deaths were self inflicted by choice, where the person elected to take their own life vs how many dead babies elected to kill themselves

In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides,
and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the US. total of 30,470 or 1/10th of 1% of US population.
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting thing about these gun death stats gun grabbers like to throw around. well over half of them are by personal choice.

another interesting perspective is this

Spoon, I don't know why you keep posting that thing. It's bullshit. I lived in New Orleans a dozen years; I promise you, there ain't nothing "tough" about it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Just the FACTS folks!!!

Since 1973 there have been...
54,559,615 abortions
524,279 deaths from fire arms..
Deaths from abortion vs guns since 1973 ? Sifting Reality

That means there were 103 times more abortions then gun deaths.. remember abortions are legal!!!

If 44.7% of the abortions were by women that have already had ONE or more abortions isn't there something that can be done?

• 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and
• 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).
• 44.7% or nearly half by women having abortions have one or more previously.

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

Now a simple measure of how people see these facts...

About 452,000 results for "ban guns" or 207% MORE google searches for "ban guns" then "ban abortions"!

About 147,000 results for "Ban abortions".


So can someone explain why 54,559,615 deaths are less important then 524,279 deaths--- YET fire-arm deaths get 70% more attention!

And when people like me simply ask why are 44.7% of these 54 million deaths done by people that have caused the deaths before are not held responsible?

Ah.. the sanctity of a woman's right!

You need to amend the Constitution.

So it is BAD to have guns that have been involved in 524,279 deaths but a woman's right to have multiple abortions ?

I am not against abortions due to rape,incest or mother's health.. BUT when nearly half of abortions are done by women who have had one or more already???
Something very very wrong there.
We neuter animals so why neuter the animals that keep making the same mistakes over and over again?
I mean what is so sacred about a woman who doesn't have respect for her own health?

No. What is bad or good is totally irrelevant. You need to amend the constitution because it does not grant the government the authority to determine what a person can and cannot do with their own body. If you want the government to have that authority then you are going to need to amend the constitution.

I, for one, support a smaller less intrusive government and therefore could not support such a MASSIVE expansion of power. I am getting the impression that you are in favor of massive and intrusive government though….

 

[FA_Q2]

In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides,
and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the US. total of 30,470 or 1/10th of 1% of US population.
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting thing about these gun death stats gun grabbers like to throw around. well over half of them are by personal choice.

another interesting perspective is this

Spoon, I don't know why you keep posting that thing. It's bullshit. I lived in New Orleans a dozen years; I promise you, there ain't nothing "tough" about it.

Your antidotal ‘evidence’ does not show that they don’t have some of the toughest gun laws. Instead, it shows that such laws are completely and totally ineffective. One more reason why the very concept of increasing gun control laws in this nation is asinine.

 

[JoeB131]

So can someone explain why 54,559,615 deaths are less important then 524,279 deaths--- YET fire-arm deaths get 70% more attention!

And when people like me simply ask why are 44.7% of these 54 million deaths done by people that have caused the deaths before are not held responsible?

Ah.. the sanctity of a woman's right!

Fetuses aren't people.

This is a pretty simple concept for most folks.

An Egg isn't a Chicken
An Acorn isn't a tree.
A Zygote isn't a person.

 

[deltex1]

How is it you can abort Jack or Jill, but you can't abort Assad or Karzai?? The emperor has no balls.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So since a fetus is not human life, I assume the following is okay:

A woman has carried a fetus to term and her water breaks. She tells her husband (let's go ahead and assume that she has one for this example, what the hell) that "it's time", and after experiencing a brief panic-induced blackout, he helps her into the car and they drive to the hospital.

During the drive, the husband tries to cut the tension by teasing her about being a Bronco fan. She thinks a moment, and she decides that she doesn't want to bring a baby into a home with a non-Bronco fan. At Main Street, she changes her mind about giving birth and instructs her husband to drive her to an abortion clinic, where the fetus is removed and that's that.

Does anyone have a problem with this scenario? It's not a human life, so?

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] ?
.

 

[JoeB131]

.

So since a fetus is not human life, I assume the following is okay:

A woman has carried a fetus to term and her water breaks. She tells her husband (let's go ahead and assume that she has one for this example, what the hell) that "it's time", and after experiencing a brief panic-induced blackout, he helps her into the car and they drive to the hospital.

During the drive, the husband tries to cut the tension by teasing her about being a Bronco fan. She thinks a moment, and she decides that she doesn't want to bring a baby into a home with a non-Bronco fan. At Main Street, she changes her mind about giving birth and instructs her husband to drive her to an abortion clinic, where the fetus is removed and that's that.

Does anyone have a problem with this scenario? It's not a human life, so?

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] ?
.

Has this ever happened, or do you have to come up with the most absurd scenario possible to rationalize the anti-Choice position?

No one carries a fetus for 9 months who doesn't want it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So since a fetus is not human life, I assume the following is okay:

A woman has carried a fetus to term and her water breaks. She tells her husband (let's go ahead and assume that she has one for this example, what the hell) that "it's time", and after experiencing a brief panic-induced blackout, he helps her into the car and they drive to the hospital.

During the drive, the husband tries to cut the tension by teasing her about being a Bronco fan. She thinks a moment, and she decides that she doesn't want to bring a baby into a home with a non-Bronco fan. At Main Street, she changes her mind about giving birth and instructs her husband to drive her to an abortion clinic, where the fetus is removed and that's that.

Does anyone have a problem with this scenario? It's not a human life, so?

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] ?
.

Has this ever happened, or do you have to come up with the most absurd scenario possible to rationalize the anti-Choice position?

No one carries a fetus for 9 months who doesn't want it.

That's okay, I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

If it's just a fetus, it's just a fetus. By your own logic, expressed many times on many threads.

If you disagreed, you would have said so.

.

 

[deltex1]

.

So since a fetus is not human life, I assume the following is okay:

A woman has carried a fetus to term and her water breaks. She tells her husband (let's go ahead and assume that she has one for this example, what the hell) that "it's time", and after experiencing a brief panic-induced blackout, he helps her into the car and they drive to the hospital.

During the drive, the husband tries to cut the tension by teasing her about being a Bronco fan. She thinks a moment, and she decides that she doesn't want to bring a baby into a home with a non-Bronco fan. At Main Street, she changes her mind about giving birth and instructs her husband to drive her to an abortion clinic, where the fetus is removed and that's that.

Does anyone have a problem with this scenario? It's not a human life, so?

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] ?
.

It all depends if Peyton renews his contract....if you're a libtard.

 

[JoeB131]

.

So since a fetus is not human life, I assume the following is okay:

A woman has carried a fetus to term and her water breaks. She tells her husband (let's go ahead and assume that she has one for this example, what the hell) that "it's time", and after experiencing a brief panic-induced blackout, he helps her into the car and they drive to the hospital.

During the drive, the husband tries to cut the tension by teasing her about being a Bronco fan. She thinks a moment, and she decides that she doesn't want to bring a baby into a home with a non-Bronco fan. At Main Street, she changes her mind about giving birth and instructs her husband to drive her to an abortion clinic, where the fetus is removed and that's that.

Does anyone have a problem with this scenario? It's not a human life, so?

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] ?
.

Has this ever happened, or do you have to come up with the most absurd scenario possible to rationalize the anti-Choice position?

No one carries a fetus for 9 months who doesn't want it.

That's okay, I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

If it's just a fetus, it's just a fetus. By your own logic, expressed many times on many threads.

If you disagreed, you would have said so.

.

I gave you a straight answer. I'm sorry you were too stupid to understand it.

Would it help if I used smaller words.

"Scenario not happen. Corky dumb."

No abortion doctor would perform an abortion on a woman who was IN LABOR.

We just had a scenario where a hospital kept a corpse alive for three months because it had a fetus in it. That's where this kind of thinking leads.

 

[mal]

.

So since a fetus is not human life, I assume the following is okay:

A woman has carried a fetus to term and her water breaks. She tells her husband (let's go ahead and assume that she has one for this example, what the hell) that "it's time", and after experiencing a brief panic-induced blackout, he helps her into the car and they drive to the hospital.

During the drive, the husband tries to cut the tension by teasing her about being a Bronco fan. She thinks a moment, and she decides that she doesn't want to bring a baby into a home with a non-Bronco fan. At Main Street, she changes her mind about giving birth and instructs her husband to drive her to an abortion clinic, where the fetus is removed and that's that.

Does anyone have a problem with this scenario? It's not a human life, so?

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] ?
.

Has this ever happened, or do you have to come up with the most absurd scenario possible to rationalize the anti-Choice position?

No one carries a fetus for 9 months who doesn't want it.

Plenty of Females have done just that thing...

On a quick search I found two that used a Washing Machine for a Post Birth Abortion.

And that's just Washing Machines Murders...

Here, have a look for yourself:

https://www.google.com/#q=woman+kills+newborn



peace...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides,
and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the US. total of 30,470 or 1/10th of 1% of US population.
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting thing about these gun death stats gun grabbers like to throw around. well over half of them are by personal choice.

another interesting perspective is this

Spoon, I don't know why you keep posting that thing. It's bullshit. I lived in New Orleans a dozen years; I promise you, there ain't nothing "tough" about it.

He keeps posting that thing because he’s an ignorant demagogue; or willfully ignorant, a liar, and a demagogue.

And he’s yet another rightwing nitwit doing more damage to Second Amendment rights than any ‘gun grabber’ as a consequence of that ignorance and demagoguery.

 

[Mac1958]

Has this ever happened, or do you have to come up with the most absurd scenario possible to rationalize the anti-Choice position?

No one carries a fetus for 9 months who doesn't want it.

That's okay, I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

If it's just a fetus, it's just a fetus. By your own logic, expressed many times on many threads.

If you disagreed, you would have said so.

.

I gave you a straight answer. I'm sorry you were too stupid to understand it.

Would it help if I used smaller words.

"Scenario not happen. Corky dumb."

No abortion doctor would perform an abortion on a woman who was IN LABOR.

We just had a scenario where a hospital kept a corpse alive for three months because it had a fetus in it. That's where this kind of thinking leads.

Okay Joe.

My apologies for being too dumb for you -- your intellect is legend here and I just took a chance -- but perhaps you'll indulge me for one more question:

If labor is too late -- and I'm just guessing that's your position because you're dodging my direct question -- at what point, precisely, does it become too late? And if it's just a fetus, why would such an arbitrary point exist?

Full disclosure, still not expecting a straight answer.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

Just the FACTS folks!!!

Since 1973 there have been...
54,559,615 abortions
524,279 deaths from fire arms..
Deaths from abortion vs guns since 1973 ? Sifting Reality

That means there were 103 times more abortions then gun deaths.. remember abortions are legal!!!

If 44.7% of the abortions were by women that have already had ONE or more abortions isn't there something that can be done?

• 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and
• 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).
• 44.7% or nearly half by women having abortions have one or more previously.

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

Now a simple measure of how people see these facts...

About 452,000 results for "ban guns" or 207% MORE google searches for "ban guns" then "ban abortions"!

About 147,000 results for "Ban abortions".


So can someone explain why 54,559,615 deaths are less important then 524,279 deaths--- YET fire-arm deaths get 70% more attention!

And when people like me simply ask why are 44.7% of these 54 million deaths done by people that have caused the deaths before are not held responsible?

Ah.. the sanctity of a woman's right!

And ALL those women were liberals. Not a conservative in the bunch...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

So since a fetus is not human life, I assume the following is okay:

A woman has carried a fetus to term and her water breaks. She tells her husband (let's go ahead and assume that she has one for this example, what the hell) that "it's time", and after experiencing a brief panic-induced blackout, he helps her into the car and they drive to the hospital.

During the drive, the husband tries to cut the tension by teasing her about being a Bronco fan. She thinks a moment, and she decides that she doesn't want to bring a baby into a home with a non-Bronco fan. At Main Street, she changes her mind about giving birth and instructs her husband to drive her to an abortion clinic, where the fetus is removed and that's that.

Does anyone have a problem with this scenario? It's not a human life, so?

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] ?
.

More demagoguery from the right.

Which is understandable given the fact conservatives predicate their policy positions on dogma and lies, absent any facts, this being one of many examples.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So since a fetus is not human life, I assume the following is okay:

A woman has carried a fetus to term and her water breaks. She tells her husband (let's go ahead and assume that she has one for this example, what the hell) that "it's time", and after experiencing a brief panic-induced blackout, he helps her into the car and they drive to the hospital.

During the drive, the husband tries to cut the tension by teasing her about being a Bronco fan. She thinks a moment, and she decides that she doesn't want to bring a baby into a home with a non-Bronco fan. At Main Street, she changes her mind about giving birth and instructs her husband to drive her to an abortion clinic, where the fetus is removed and that's that.

Does anyone have a problem with this scenario? It's not a human life, so?

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] ?
.

More demagoguery from the right.

Which is understandable given the fact conservatives predicate their policy positions on dogma and lies, absent any facts, this being one of many examples.

More deflection from the Left. Another dodge.

And guess what? I'm pro choice. But see, not all of us are partisan ideologues like you. Most of us struggle with tough questions, we don't just avoid them because they're difficult. We're willing to be honest and actually think about and answer tough questions. And we're willing to be honest and admit that nothing is simple and black & white.

I can only imagine how crazy that must sound to someone like you.

Sometimes this place is just too easy.



.

 

[JoeB131]

That's okay, I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

If it's just a fetus, it's just a fetus. By your own logic, expressed many times on many threads.

If you disagreed, you would have said so.

.

I gave you a straight answer. I'm sorry you were too stupid to understand it.

Would it help if I used smaller words.

"Scenario not happen. Corky dumb."

No abortion doctor would perform an abortion on a woman who was IN LABOR.

We just had a scenario where a hospital kept a corpse alive for three months because it had a fetus in it. That's where this kind of thinking leads.

Okay Joe.

My apologies for being too dumb for you -- your intellect is legend here and I just took a chance -- but perhaps you'll indulge me for one more question:

If labor is too late -- and I'm just guessing that's your position because you're dodging my direct question -- at what point, precisely, does it become too late? And if it's just a fetus, why would such an arbitrary point exist?

Full disclosure, still not expecting a straight answer.

.

I gave you a straight answer.

It never happens.

Therefore, it's a pointless question.

The only time people have abortions in the third trimester is if something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy. But the Bible thumping ghouls want to stick their noses where it doesn't belong.

The decision should be with teh woman and her doctor. Period.

But, hey, guy, please embrace all the crazies and get them to think you care about their issues.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's okay, I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

If it's just a fetus, it's just a fetus. By your own logic, expressed many times on many threads.

If you disagreed, you would have said so.

.

I gave you a straight answer. I'm sorry you were too stupid to understand it.

Would it help if I used smaller words.

"Scenario not happen. Corky dumb."

No abortion doctor would perform an abortion on a woman who was IN LABOR.

We just had a scenario where a hospital kept a corpse alive for three months because it had a fetus in it. That's where this kind of thinking leads.

Okay Joe.

My apologies for being too dumb for you -- your intellect is legend here and I just took a chance -- but perhaps you'll indulge me for one more question:

If labor is too late -- and I'm just guessing that's your position because you're dodging my direct question -- at what point, precisely, does it become too late? And if it's just a fetus, why would such an arbitrary point exist?

Full disclosure, still not expecting a straight answer.

.

The better, more important question is: what attributes does the state possess that gives it the authority to dictate at what point it’s ‘too late,’ as opposed to allowing individuals to decide?

 

[Mac1958]

I gave you a straight answer. I'm sorry you were too stupid to understand it.

Would it help if I used smaller words.

"Scenario not happen. Corky dumb."

No abortion doctor would perform an abortion on a woman who was IN LABOR.

We just had a scenario where a hospital kept a corpse alive for three months because it had a fetus in it. That's where this kind of thinking leads.

Okay Joe.

My apologies for being too dumb for you -- your intellect is legend here and I just took a chance -- but perhaps you'll indulge me for one more question:

If labor is too late -- and I'm just guessing that's your position because you're dodging my direct question -- at what point, precisely, does it become too late? And if it's just a fetus, why would such an arbitrary point exist?

Full disclosure, still not expecting a straight answer.

.

I gave you a straight answer.

It never happens.

Therefore, it's a pointless question.

The only time people have abortions in the third trimester is if something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy. But the Bible thumping ghouls want to stick their noses where it doesn't belong.

The decision should be with teh woman and her doctor. Period.

But, hey, guy, please embrace all the crazies and get them to think you care about their issues.

Another dodge, of course.

• Month 1?
• Month 2?
• Month 3?
• Month 4?
• Month 5?
• Month 6?
• Month 7?
• Month 8?

Aw, never mind, Joe, I'm not expecting an answer. I have to admit, sometimes I just like poking at liars and ideologues with a stick.

.