Why Can't the Pro-Abortionists be Honest?

[revelarts]

Frankly Yes, yes it does.
Test tube conceptions whole purpose is to bring forth a human being.
the fact that it does it and discards many living humans as a by product of the process is a silent horror.

This invites a whole plethora of additional issues. I'm inclined to agree with you Rev, I think it is the same thing. But at the same time, who's responsibility is it: the lab assistant, the doctor, the genetic parents, the invitro parents(if diff than genetic), society, govt?

All of the above?
Probably should start with that assumption and work our way down. Different levels different devils.

[gabosaurus]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months. And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion. But they can't handle kids. They made a mistake.

If you can't comprehend that, then I feel sorry for you.

[LuvRPgrl]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months. And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion. But they can't handle kids. They made a mistake.

If you can't comprehend that, then I feel sorry for you.

I can understand that your analogies are false.

OBFUSCATION, the act of deliberately causing confusion so no conclusion wil be the outcome o the discussion, because those wishing to obfucate, know they are wrong.
INCLUDES:
Answering questions with questions
Ignoring questions
Changing the subject
Red Herrings
Straw men

OK, lets sstart over. MY ORIGINAL statement was

THERE ARE ONLY 2 CLEAR, DISTINCT, NON MOVING AND NON ARBITRARY POINTS, FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH, THAT I KNOW OF.

HENCE, ANY other line drawn in the sand, is arbitrary, subject to change as science changes, emotional.

Now MM, answer the question.

I asked first, if you have a question, answer mine and follow it with your question, otherwise you are guilty of obfuscation and are by default admitting you got nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch,

[Kathianne]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months. And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion. But they can't handle kids. They made a mistake.

If you can't comprehend that, then I feel sorry for you.

What if same teen is raped multiple times, each resulting in pregnancy? Should the assumption be that she is using 'rape' to claim multiple abortion or she just defies all odds?

One of the problems with your examples. How would having an abortion result in an uplifting of 'young teen girls' self-esteem, so that they avoid unprotected sex that might result in another pregnancy? Would you then say they should be denied?

[logroller]

????....so the fact that there are health consequences to having a child justifies ignoring the fact there are health consequences to legal abortions?.......

That is absolutely not the point. There are risks to inherent risks to pregnancy--period. You can most greatly reduce the health risks by not becoming pregnant, merely not having an abortion doesn't reduce your risk; au contraire, the risks are actually greater if you have a live birth.

I can understand that your analogies are false.

OBFUSCATION, the act of deliberately causing confusion so no conclusion wil be the outcome o the discussion, because those wishing to obfucate, know they are wrong.
INCLUDES:
Answering questions with questions
Ignoring questions
Changing the subject
Red Herrings
Straw men

OK, lets sstart over. MY ORIGINAL statement was

THERE ARE ONLY 2 CLEAR, DISTINCT, NON MOVING AND NON ARBITRARY POINTS, FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH, THAT I KNOW OF.

HENCE, ANY other line drawn in the sand, is arbitrary, subject to change as science changes, emotional.

Now MM, answer the question.

I asked first, if you have a question, answer mine and follow it with your question, otherwise you are guilty of obfuscation and are by default admitting you got nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch,

Well your statement is false for starts, and second, you asked no question.

[gabosaurus]

I can understand that your analogies are false.

OK, lets sstart over. MY ORIGINAL statement was

THERE ARE ONLY 2 CLEAR, DISTINCT, NON MOVING AND NON ARBITRARY POINTS, FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH, THAT I KNOW OF.

HENCE, ANY other line drawn in the sand, is arbitrary, subject to change as science changes, emotional.

This statement makes you appear to be even less of a human being than you already allege to be.
What you are saying is that any condition that makes a woman pregnant needs to be accepted without challenge. You are pregnant, your tough luck. Live with it.

The religious extremists that I know of care ZERO about what happens to a baby after it is born. Their only demand is that it is carried to term and delivered.
If the newborn is then thrown in a dumpster or left to rot in a landfill, they could care less. If the child is abused and beaten to death, they don't care.
Death after birth is always preferable to death in the womb. Right?
Such sick people you are.

[Missileman]

I can understand that your analogies are false.

OBFUSCATION, the act of deliberately causing confusion so no conclusion wil be the outcome o the discussion, because those wishing to obfucate, know they are wrong.
INCLUDES:
Answering questions with questions
Ignoring questions
Changing the subject
Red Herrings
Straw men

OK, lets sstart over. MY ORIGINAL statement was

THERE ARE ONLY 2 CLEAR, DISTINCT, NON MOVING AND NON ARBITRARY POINTS, FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH, THAT I KNOW OF.

HENCE, ANY other line drawn in the sand, is arbitrary, subject to change as science changes, emotional.

Now MM, answer the question.

I asked first, if you have a question, answer mine and follow it with your question, otherwise you are guilty of obfuscation and are by default admitting you got nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch,

You quote Gabby and then shoot a question at me(kinda)? As I recall, I said there are other lines between conception and birth. I've already given one such line, start of fetal heartbeat. As such, I've answered your question. Capiche?

[J.T]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

History shows an increase in abortions after it SCOTUS said it had to be legal.

This is because it wasn't always the 'easy solution' to avoid responsibility that the abortion industry markets it as today.


Again, why is it you insist you'll always find a hitman for hire to kill your baby and scrape your insides out with a coathanger, yet you can never find a condom, and IUD, or spermicidal foam or lubricant?

If you took 1/10 of the effort it takes to find a hitman specializing in the unborn and applied it towards finding prophylactics or exercising some self-control and keeping your pants on and not engaging in unprotected sexual activity outside a committed relationship with someone you're prepared to start a family with, you wouldn't have these problems.

You go through even more effort to get pregnant and kill your babies instead of taking the easy route. Why is that, unless killing your babies is a key part of your bizarre faith like some sort of sacrifice to Molech?

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months.

Why?

And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

Why?

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend

Why did the parents allow their children access to a firearm?

and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I'd want the parents investigated on suspicion they failed to take reasonable precautions with their firearms. I'd also want an investigation into the homicide to determine whether the death was accidental or intentional. If intentional, then the DA must determine whether we have a case of murder or manslaughter to take before the courts.

No, if your 13-year-old son puts a gun to a neighbor's head and squeezes the trigger, he shouldn't be allowed to get away with 'a stupid, youthful mistake'. Little killers become big killers and idiots like you are why MS-13 and other gangs recruit early and use their youngest members to commit many murders.

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion.

Lies. If they didn't want abortions, they wouldn't be having them- let alone more than one.

But they can't handle kids.

That's what families are for. Or adoption. PLenty of good people who would make excellent parents cannot have children and would love to give your child a good home. All you have to do is not kill your baby and everyone can be happy- you don't have to be responsible for yourself, a loving couple gets a child they could not otherwise have the joy of rearing, and your son or daughter gets a loving home instead of being torn limb from limb with a pair of forceps and thrown in a dumpster as medical waste.


Why do you feel this need to kill babies? Why do you go through so many hoops to come up with an excuse to kill your children and those of other people?

You quote Gabby and then shoot a question at me(kinda)? As I recall, I said there are other lines between conception and birth. I've already given one such line, start of fetal heartbeat. As such, I've answered your question. Capiche?

So now you're saying the heartbeat is what makes it not okay to kill someone in cold blood?


So if I were to shoot Dick Cheney in the head...?

[fj1200]

This statement makes you appear to be even less of a human being than you already allege to be.
What you are saying is that any condition that makes a woman pregnant needs to be accepted without challenge. You are pregnant, your tough luck. Live with it.

The religious extremists that I know of care ZERO about what happens to a baby after it is born. Their only demand is that it is carried to term and delivered.
If the newborn is then thrown in a dumpster or left to rot in a landfill, they could care less. If the child is abused and beaten to death, they don't care.
Death after birth is always preferable to death in the womb. Right?
Such sick people you are.

Your new avatar fits your recent posts to a T.

[Missileman]

So now you're saying the heartbeat is what makes it not okay to kill someone in cold blood?

I never suggested anything of the sort, this is just another of your lies, even if you framed it as a question.

[J.T]

I never suggested anything of the sort, this is just another of your lies, even if you framed it as a question.

So now you're claiming the heartbeat has nothing to do with anything?

Then why'd you bring it up in the first place?


Can you please stick to one line of bullshit?

[logroller]

So now you're claiming the heartbeat has nothing to do with anything?

Then why'd you bring it up in the first place?


Can you please stick to one line of bullshit?

Are you really this stupid or just trying to pick afight regardless. A beating heart is necessary condition for a human to be alive. That's why MM mentioned it. He was refuting an earlier statement regarding fertilization and birth being the only significant milestones to fetal development; which is an unreasonable assumption. If Dick Cheney's heart were not beating, technically, he would be dead; therefore, shooting him would not be murder.

[J.T]

Are you really this stupid or just trying to pick afight regardless. A beating heart is necessary condition for a human to be alive.

So Dick Cheney's not alive?

That's why MM mentioned it.

Because he fails biology forever?

If Dick Cheney's heart were not beating, technically, he would be dead

And yet it's not and he's not.

therefore, shooting him would not be murder.

Good to know

[gabosaurus]

So under that logic, shooting JT would not be murder. Since obviously he doesn't have a heart.

[PostmodernProphet]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months. And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion. But they can't handle kids. They made a mistake.

If you can't comprehend that, then I feel sorry for you.

I'm curious.....is it your contention that we want to put women in jail for the rest of their lives for having an abortion, or is it your contention that bringing the pregnancy to term is a life sentence......

You quote Gabby and then shoot a question at me(kinda)? As I recall, I said there are other lines between conception and birth. I've already given one such line, start of fetal heartbeat. As such, I've answered your question. Capiche?

I thought you said you were willing to abort up to the first trimester?......

Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112