Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Yep, because the man is part of the process also, in which creates the new being in which is born of a mother and a father as God intended it to be.Off the top of my head I would think women would have a problem with people telling them what to do with their own bodies.
The baby is not a part of the mother's body. The baby lives in the mother's body but is not a part of it. The baby has a separate blood supply, often with a different blood type. The baby has different DNA than the mother. The baby has a separate heart, separate brain, separate arms and legs and feet, separate body, separate everything.
If it lives in the mothers body then my point stands. The mother is under zero obligation to let the baby stay there.Off the top of my head I would think women would have a problem with people telling them what to do with their own bodies.
The baby is not a part of the mother's body. The baby lives in the mother's body but is not a part of it. The baby has a separate blood supply, often with a different blood type. The baby has different DNA than the mother. The baby has a separate heart, separate brain, separate arms and legs and feet, separate body, separate everything.
When someone else can carry the child to term then and only then would your argument have any merit.Yep, because the man is part of the process also, in which creates the new being in which is born of a mother and a father as God intended it to be.Off the top of my head I would think women would have a problem with people telling them what to do with their own bodies.
The baby is not a part of the mother's body. The baby lives in the mother's body but is not a part of it. The baby has a separate blood supply, often with a different blood type. The baby has different DNA than the mother. The baby has a separate heart, separate brain, separate arms and legs and feet, separate body, separate everything.
The baby is not just the mothers to then decide on her own whether it lives or not, and especially when making such an evil "choice" without regards to its life or her selfishness in such a thing, and that part has been way over looked in all this, and that is just ashame really.
Almost half of the women are married, super dupe and no one does it on on purpose. Quite the sexist bigot...No abortion on demand anymore or aborting babies out of convience means keeping them legs closed until your wedding day, and guy's, respect your potential life partners choice in waiting on that day. If not that standard, then stock up on birth control, and learn how to use it already.Mike, I'm currently in a thread with a mess of conservatives who feel ANY welfare programs are "robbing" them of their hard earned cash. What would be so awful with overturning Roe v. Wade is that no one is going to want to spend the $ to care for these unwanted children. Financial reasons are high on the list of why women choose to terminate a pregnancy--they can't afford another baby. So what happens when the baby is born to a parent who can't afford to raise it? Then some on the right will blame the parents for not caring for it or asking for benefits.What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?
Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.
If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.
Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions
U.S. Abortion Statistics
Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"
https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade
Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t
It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts
THAT is part of what is so wrong with overturning Roe v. Wade.
Problem solved. See how simple it is ?? And we didn't even have to have 40 Harvard lawyers to figure it out for us.
So she can commit murder just because the baby sadly enough happens to be unfortunately carried by a murderer found in her for whom can kill without thought of ??? You think the country should condone or be dragged into this kind of thing in which corrupts the nations overall character also ??If it lives in the mothers body then my point stands. The mother is under zero obligation to let the baby stay there.Off the top of my head I would think women would have a problem with people telling them what to do with their own bodies.
The baby is not a part of the mother's body. The baby lives in the mother's body but is not a part of it. The baby has a separate blood supply, often with a different blood type. The baby has different DNA than the mother. The baby has a separate heart, separate brain, separate arms and legs and feet, separate body, separate everything.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.
If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.
Last I checked murder is a crime and since its not a crime to get an abortion youre deflecting and or you are ignorant. Since you are not carrying the child you have no say in what she does to rid her body of an unwanted baby.So she can commit murder just because the baby sadly enough happens to be unfortunately carried by a murderer found in her for whom can kill without thought of ??? You think the country should condone or be dragged into this kind of thing in which corrupts the nations overall character also ??If it lives in the mothers body then my point stands. The mother is under zero obligation to let the baby stay there.Off the top of my head I would think women would have a problem with people telling them what to do with their own bodies.
The baby is not a part of the mother's body. The baby lives in the mother's body but is not a part of it. The baby has a separate blood supply, often with a different blood type. The baby has different DNA than the mother. The baby has a separate heart, separate brain, separate arms and legs and feet, separate body, separate everything.
Obama liked to do that also.So "right to lifers" can separate kids from their parents and throw them in cages?What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?
Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.
If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.
Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions
U.S. Abortion Statistics
Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"
https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade
Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t
It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts
For someone who denies the Bible, and therefore denies the creator who the Bible was written in inspiration by, uhh you sure like to play a religious role in your attempt to conduct your words in such a way that concerns life and/or death.If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.
If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.
If there is no brain activity...they are NOT living beings. And please save the Bible crap...I could not care less about that rag (or any other religious 'club manual') says. And I do not believe anyone has a 'soul' before they have a working brain. There is literally NOTHING imaginable that one could say to convince me life begins at conception.
However, I am against abortion after brain activity begins. And certainly after about 20 weeks when scientists apparently state that that is roughly when sentience begins. That is just flat out murder/manslaughter to me...unless the child's mother's life is in imminent danger (and I mean IMMINENT).
But forcing pregnant women (in the first trimester) who do not want to have children, to have children is probably ridiculous. All you are doing is quite likely subjecting the child to a life of misery as they are raised by parents who do not truly want/love their children. Especially if the child is aborted before there is brain activity.
And please save the 'they can always be adopted' stuff. Every, single person I know who was adopted was raised badly by their parents. The idea that adoptive parents are almost always great is total nonsense. Some are. Many or not. I believe most are not.
IMO, if the child was aborted before there is brain activity...there is (probably) no huge loss. There is no soul and no living being to have killed. A body that has never had brain activity is not a living being...it's just a body.
I will not waste my time arguing with pro-'lifers' on this. And I will not waste my time arguing with fanatical 'pro-choicer's (who believe the woman should be able to legally abort the child at ANY time) either.
The above is just my addition to the discussion.
Listen at you - "RID HER BODY OF AN UNWANTED BABY". OTHERWISE TO DENY THAT BABY A LIFE OR a CHANCE AS WAS ONCE UPON A TIME GRANTED UNTO YOU BY GOD HIMSELF, AND THROUGH THE MIRACLE OF BIRTH ??Last I checked murder is a crime and since its not a crime to get an abortion youre deflecting and or you are ignorant. Since you are not carrying the child you have no say in what she does to rid her body of an unwanted baby.So she can commit murder just because the baby sadly enough happens to be unfortunately carried by a murderer found in her for whom can kill without thought of ??? You think the country should condone or be dragged into this kind of thing in which corrupts the nations overall character also ??If it lives in the mothers body then my point stands. The mother is under zero obligation to let the baby stay there.Off the top of my head I would think women would have a problem with people telling them what to do with their own bodies.
The baby is not a part of the mother's body. The baby lives in the mother's body but is not a part of it. The baby has a separate blood supply, often with a different blood type. The baby has different DNA than the mother. The baby has a separate heart, separate brain, separate arms and legs and feet, separate body, separate everything.
If God wanted to save aborted children he would at the very least made it illegal and at best impossible to do. You ever think about that?Listen at you - "RID HER BODY OF AN UNWANTED BABY". OTHERWISE TO DENY THAT BABY A LIFE OR a CHANCE AS WAS ONCE UPON A TIME GRANTED UNTO YOU BY GOD HIMSELF, AND THROUGH THE MIRACLE OF BIRTH ??Last I checked murder is a crime and since its not a crime to get an abortion youre deflecting and or you are ignorant. Since you are not carrying the child you have no say in what she does to rid her body of an unwanted baby.So she can commit murder just because the baby sadly enough happens to be unfortunately carried by a murderer found in her for whom can kill without thought of ??? You think the country should condone or be dragged into this kind of thing in which corrupts the nations overall character also ??If it lives in the mothers body then my point stands. The mother is under zero obligation to let the baby stay there.Off the top of my head I would think women would have a problem with people telling them what to do with their own bodies.
The baby is not a part of the mother's body. The baby lives in the mother's body but is not a part of it. The baby has a separate blood supply, often with a different blood type. The baby has different DNA than the mother. The baby has a separate heart, separate brain, separate arms and legs and feet, separate body, separate everything.
What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?
Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.
If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.
Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions
U.S. Abortion Statistics
Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"
https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade
Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t
It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts
Are you prepared to allow the government to help the mothers that can't afford those babies? I doubt it. "Lol fuck you. Shoulda kept your legs closed, slut."
If God wanted to save aborted children he would at the very least made it illegal and at best impossible to do. You ever think about that?Listen at you - "RID HER BODY OF AN UNWANTED BABY". OTHERWISE TO DENY THAT BABY A LIFE OR a CHANCE AS WAS ONCE UPON A TIME GRANTED UNTO YOU BY GOD HIMSELF, AND THROUGH THE MIRACLE OF BIRTH ??Last I checked murder is a crime and since its not a crime to get an abortion youre deflecting and or you are ignorant. Since you are not carrying the child you have no say in what she does to rid her body of an unwanted baby.So she can commit murder just because the baby sadly enough happens to be unfortunately carried by a murderer found in her for whom can kill without thought of ??? You think the country should condone or be dragged into this kind of thing in which corrupts the nations overall character also ??If it lives in the mothers body then my point stands. The mother is under zero obligation to let the baby stay there.The baby is not a part of the mother's body. The baby lives in the mother's body but is not a part of it. The baby has a separate blood supply, often with a different blood type. The baby has different DNA than the mother. The baby has a separate heart, separate brain, separate arms and legs and feet, separate body, separate everything.
Mike, I'm currently in a thread with a mess of conservatives who feel ANY welfare programs are "robbing" them of their hard earned cash. What would be so awful with overturning Roe v. Wade is that no one is going to want to spend the $ to care for these unwanted children. Financial reasons are high on the list of why women choose to terminate a pregnancy--they can't afford another baby. So what happens when the baby is born to a parent who can't afford to raise it? Then some on the right will blame the parents for not caring for it or asking for benefits.What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?
Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.
If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.
Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions
U.S. Abortion Statistics
Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"
https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade
Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t
It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts
THAT is part of what is so wrong with overturning Roe v. Wade.
So "right to lifers" can separate kids from their parents and throw them in cages?What exactly would be so awful or terrible about overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to resume control over the issue, and saving thousands or tens of thousands of unborn babies' lives?
Roe v. Wade was based on junk science, junk law, and on the myth of an epidemic of "back alley abortions." Legalized elective abortion is far more of a stain on our nation's history than slavery was. The number of babies killed by abortion dwarfs the number of slaves who were killed by abusive slaveholders.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, state governments would retake control of the issue. Some states would legalize all abortion except partial-birth abortion (which is illegal under federal law). Other states would place significant restrictions on abortion. And some states would ban most or all abortions. Undoubtedly, thousands or tens of thousands of babies would be saved from abortion.
If women were really determined to kill their babies for their own convenience (i.e., elective abortion), they could always go to a state where elective abortion were legal.
Debunking the myth of ‘back-alley’ abortions
U.S. Abortion Statistics
Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"
https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade
Science Has Advanced Since Roe v. Wade But Abortion Laws Haven’t
It's a scientific fact: Human life begins at conception
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts
He didnt tell you to save babies in the womb. Please link to a commandment that says you must stop women from having abortions.If God wanted to save aborted children he would at the very least made it illegal and at best impossible to do. You ever think about that?Listen at you - "RID HER BODY OF AN UNWANTED BABY". OTHERWISE TO DENY THAT BABY A LIFE OR a CHANCE AS WAS ONCE UPON A TIME GRANTED UNTO YOU BY GOD HIMSELF, AND THROUGH THE MIRACLE OF BIRTH ??Last I checked murder is a crime and since its not a crime to get an abortion youre deflecting and or you are ignorant. Since you are not carrying the child you have no say in what she does to rid her body of an unwanted baby.So she can commit murder just because the baby sadly enough happens to be unfortunately carried by a murderer found in her for whom can kill without thought of ??? You think the country should condone or be dragged into this kind of thing in which corrupts the nations overall character also ??If it lives in the mothers body then my point stands. The mother is under zero obligation to let the baby stay there.
If God wanted us to save babies in the womb, he would have made a commandment against killing them....oh, that's right, he did.
Off the top of my head I would think women would have a problem with people telling them what to do with their own bodies.
