Is abortion ok

[quietmike]

Definition of BABY

an extremely young child; especially : infant —sometimes used of an adult daughter or son to express parental nostalgia or affection; an extremely young animal; the youngest of a group… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I don't mean to make sense , but it seems pretty stupid to not think your offspring would matter .

 

[doubloon]

@doubloon It’s almost comical to listen to you trying to reconcile a fleshly and spiritual world view within your arguments. You honestly don’t seem to understand your foundation level contradictions.

I understand that it is not your job to judge and decide who passes into the pearly gates anymore than it is mine or the job of the babblers who keep posting what appears to be the belief everyone on the "fleshly" planet should be held accountable by men to "gods" law. They are no different in their thinking than the radical muslims they hate so much who want to kill everyone who doesn't convert.

My convictions apply to me and no one else. Only I am accountable for my life and I am accountable for no one else's.

I am not trying to "reconcile a fleshly and spiritual world view". I am stating plainly they are two different things. The pompous air bags trying to convince everyone that their personal view of god given morality is the law everyone should follow are the ones trying to force consistency between the two.

Not even the founding fathers were this conceited.

 

[quietmike]

I understand that it is not your job to judge and decide who passes into the pearly gates anymore than it is mine or the job of the babblers who keep posting what appears to be the belief everyone on the "fleshly" planet should be held accountable by men to "gods" law. They are no different in their thinking than the radical muslims they hate so much who want to kill everyone who doesn't convert.

My convictions apply to me and no one else. Only I am accountable for my life and I am accountable for no one else's.

I am not trying to "reconcile a fleshly and spiritual world view". I am stating plainly they are two different things. The pompous air bags trying to convince everyone that their personal view of god given morality is the law everyone should follow are the ones trying to force consistency between the two.

Not even the founding fathers were this conceited.

You ever see a female friend you haven't seen in a while, obviously expecting, and say OMG when is your fetus due?
Any female family ever throw or attend a fetus shower for a friend?
Ever go to Walgreens or CVS and find a fetus shower card?

Since it's a baby if wanted and fetus if not, fetus is not much different than the n-word.
A dehumanizing term used to assuage any guilt over mistreating or killing them.


Further, how does it feel to have dozens of posts in a thread and being so muddleheaded that no one understands (by your own admission) what you are saying?

Why can't you answer very simple basic questions about your ideology?

 

[doubloon]

You ever see a female friend you haven't seen in a while, obviously expecting, and say OMG when is your fetus due?

You didn't earn it but I'll make this one exception.

Do you really believe you are even making a lucid point?

Obviously the right question is "When is your baby due?" because the baby isn't here yet.

It's a fetus or an embryo. Nobody needs to ask when is the fetus due because the fetus is obviously here already.

Once the baby is here they will stop asking when the baby is due and start asking things like "Can I hold your baby?". Nobody ever said "Can I hold your fetus?" because they know the difference between a fetus and a baby.

Now go away and come back when you make sense.

 

[doubloon]

Why can't you answer very simple basic questions about your ideology?

Asked and answered many times.

 

[Doctorwho1138]

Life begins at conception. The beginning is the first step of any process. Without that moment life would never begin. People want to keep trying to move the goalposts but that is undeniable fact. An abortion ends that life. People want to use the term fetus around to try and make the woman feel better about murder but it still is murder. A fetus still turns into a baby and it is part of the development process. A fetus is still a baby. Don’t want to kill a baby through abortion? Don’t be promiscuous or at the very least use contraceptives It’s not hard. They can even implant one if you are too bothered to take a pill or use a condom. Once that organism starts to show signs of life such as a heart beat. You lose any argument whatsoever that is not a developing human. You choose to kill it, you are a murderer full stop. I remember going in for 4d scan of my kids while my wife was carrying them and you can see their little personality’s even in that little scan. Life has a beginning middle and an end. Each stage looks different. By choosing to end a child’s life in the beginning doesn’t change the fact that you just ended that child’s life. So many people are so desensitized to abortion that they don’t ever consider the baby’s life. Even at its most basic concept, a fetus is a developing child. It’s still a child.

 

[quietmike]

You didn't earn it but I'll make this one exception.

Do you really believe you are even making a lucid point?

Obviously the right question is "When is your baby due?" because the baby isn't here yet.

It's a fetus or an embryo. Nobody needs to ask when is the fetus due because the fetus is obviously here already.

Once the baby is here they will stop asking when the baby is due and start asking things like "Can I hold your baby?". Nobody ever said "Can I hold your fetus?" because they know the difference between a fetus and a baby.

Now go away and come back when you make sense.

Why do you snip out the parts you're too stupid to address?

Since it's a baby if wanted and fetus if not, fetus is not much different than the n-word.
A dehumanizing term used to assuage any guilt over mistreating or killing them.


Further, how does it feel to have dozens of posts in a thread and being so muddleheaded that no one understands (by your own admission) what you are saying?

 

[quietmike]

Asked and answered many times.

I've told you multiple times a a string of emojis isn't an answer.

 

[doubloon]

I've told you multiple times a a string of emojis isn't an answer.

Ask your question, provide your answer to the question and I will provide mine if the question is relevant to the topic of "is abortion OK".

 

[doubloon]

Life begins at conception. ... Even at its most basic concept, a fetus is a developing child. It’s still a child.

I have no dispute over when anybody thinks life begins. Technically a zygote cannot be created without live sperm and a live egg so life "begins" before conception. Eggs don't come into existence without primary oocytes. Maybe "life" begins when primary oocytes are formed, maybe before. When "life begins" and when "life" legally becomes a person are to different things.

Show me the line on the tax return where you can legally declare a fetus as a dependent. I'm thinking not even the most zealous right to lifer has ever declared an unborn child as a dependent on a tax return ... duplicity? cognitive dissonance? It's not legally a child, baby, person, etc. until it's born and lives.

 

[Fig]

No, I don’t think “slavery” is ok even in its mildest form (taxation by force). However, milder forms of slavery don’t turn the human being (“thing in her belly”) into worthless property to be disposed of as anyone sees fit. I guess worthless isn’t correct either since murdering a baby is essentially saying he/she has a negative value to you.

In order to murder a human being and be able to live with yourself you have to dehumanize him/her. That’s why you call a baby human being a thing. QED.

As far a pigeon holing @Bender, any point at which you place personhood other than when that life is probably a human being absolves you of nothing. It could be five minutes into that person’s life, one year old, or 75 years old. It’s absolutely as arbitrary as deciding that it’s ok to enslave people and take away their rights and personhood because of the way they look. While compromise may make you feel better about what you support, facts are facts, and unless you can disprove the science it’s absolutely clear and cut and dry. It’s a gleaming, bright line that impossible for a rational person to ignore. Ignoring that gleaming, bright line and arbitrairily placing personhood at whatever random point excuses murder is the crux of the whole issue.

The intent of the mother is irrelevant. It’s a unique human being. Whether your mother loved you or hated you and wanted to kill you is entirely irrelevant.

I myself do this as well. I’m actually a master at it, but it’s not a misunderstanding of reality, or a conceit to kill my innocent son or daughter so I don’t have to take responsibility for where my dick has been. Since communists deny personhood to every comrade in their body politic I return the favor and do not consider them human beings at all. People living under communism unwillingly are slaves for sure, but the enslavers deserve nothing but death. I pretty much call anyone trying to kill me a goblin to dehumanize them so it’s easier for me to kill them and still sleep soundly. So I’m not immune to this, but I would never just dehumanize a random person, and I certainly wouldn’t do it to a child, a baby, or especially someone so innocent they hadn’t even taken their first breath…

Whatever your reasons for supporting this most foul practice, you should stop it. Not because you believe in God or have faith in anything at all, but because devaluing human beings has the worst possible ramifications for all of us.

My convictions apply to me and no one else. Only I am accountable for my life and I am accountable for no one else's.

I am not trying to "reconcile a fleshly and spiritual world view". I am stating plainly they are two different things. The pompous air bags trying to convince everyone that their personal view of god given morality is the law everyone should follow are the ones trying to force consistency between the two.

Not even the founding fathers were this conceited.

No libertarian would ever make an argument that they have the right to kill another human being unless it was in self-defense. The only way this would make any logical sense is from the point of view of a libertarian is if there was only one human being involved, but the fact that you are murdering another human being (whose murderers took part in creating) makes the arguments for life even more compelling.

All religions are not, from a Socratic point of view, of equal merit. If a Democrat says they are pro-second amendment and believe you should be able to possess any weapons you want, are you going to start arguing the opposing view simply because they consider themselves in the opposing party? Or, is it all the fruit of the poisoned tree?

Yea, we get it. You are a fully rational man who rejects all superstition and who is completely rooted in this world, and this reality. You reject anything that you can't measure or prove. You only see hypocrisy in Christianity because we all fail to follow The Law, are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God, and we don't live a Christ like life. "I" am not asking you to oppose abortion because of something I believe. I have expressly not made religious based arguments, just as the Founding Fathers did not make arguments based on their religious beliefs. The fact is they're unnecessary, and ineffective on people who don't believe. I am asking you to oppose abortion because of scientific fact, and what is self-evident. We know when life becomes a human being. We can test it, and confirm it, just as we can prove that any slave is a human being.

If you actually ARE a libertarian, actually believe that all human beings have inherent rights, and you actually care about right and wrong, then there is no other conclusion that abortion is the murder of the only 100% innocent human beings on our planet. Denying any human being legal personhood and rights unattached to any facts ought to absolutely rankle your libertarian sentiments. Only by pretending this murder only affects the murderer can it be justified. Why do you think the left talks about this murder as a healthcare issue. They are somehow able to ignore salient facts to come to an illogical conclusion (it's what makes them leftists). This is NOT any sort of rational, libertarian argument. In fact, those who place liberty on the top of their political pecking order would naturally try to protect the rights of the most vulnerable and those unable to speak for themselves first.

As I said, it shouldn't be a negotiation. There IS a bright line that our knowledge and understanding affords us. Faith is not necessary.

 

[quietmike]

Ask your question, provide your answer to the question and I will provide mine if the question is relevant to the topic of "is abortion OK".

I've already asked and your ignored it.
How is fetus not simply the modern analogue to the n-word?
Both were/are used as a dehumanizing term to assuage any guilt over mistreating or killing them.

 

[Rthur]

I have no dispute over when anybody thinks life begins. Technically a zygote cannot be created without live sperm and a live egg so life "begins" before conception. Eggs don't come into existence without primary oocytes. Maybe "life" begins when primary oocytes are formed, maybe before. When "life begins" and when "life" legally becomes a person are to different things.

Show me the line on the tax return where you can legally declare a fetus as a dependent. I'm thinking not even the most zealous right to lifer has ever declared an unborn child as a dependent on a tax return ... duplicity? cognitive dissonance? It's not legally a child, baby, person, etc. until it's born and lives.

Word salad, the expenses incurred can be written off.
A lot like how you get write offs for children as well.
Laughable to use tax code as a reasonable basis for this argument.

I'll add if a pregnant women is killed the perp is charged with 2 homicides.


R

 

[Doctorwho1138]

I have no dispute over when anybody thinks life begins. Technically a zygote cannot be created without live sperm and a live egg so life "begins" before conception. Eggs don't come into existence without primary oocytes. Maybe "life" begins when primary oocytes are formed, maybe before. When "life begins" and when "life" legally becomes a person are to different things.

Show me the line on the tax return where you can legally declare a fetus as a dependent. I'm thinking not even the most zealous right to lifer has ever declared an unborn child as a dependent on a tax return ... duplicity? cognitive dissonance? It's not legally a child, baby, person, etc. until it's born and lives.

Once the egg becomes fertilized and implanted, there is life. I could get into the entire process as I had to learn it so many times in school but you get the idea.

I could care less what the IRS determines on your tax return and it’s irrelevant to this conversation. It doesn’t change the fact that a woman is carrying a developing child in her belly. The cells are differentiating, multiplying, etc, ie life is happening. If it wasn’t there would be nothing going on.

 

[psharon78]

We should expand abortion access in blue cities and college campuses. Let the left breed themselves, or rather, not breed themselves a new generation. This will be a self correcting problem in a few decades.

 

[Gommer]

I've already asked and your ignored it.
How is fetus not simply the modern analogue to the n-word?
Both were/are used as a dehumanizing term to assuage any guilt over mistreating or killing them.

Fetus simply describes a stage of development.

Egg (Not a human) -> Embryo (Now a human) -> Fetus -> Infant -> Toddler -> Adolescent etc

The term in itself is an acknowledgment that it is a human being because the term is a state of human development. Any argument otherwise is disingenuous.

The debate over abortion is really a question of at what point in human development is intentional, premeditated, homicide going to be permitted. Pro-life is an argument that intentional homicide is not morally acceptable. Pro-abortion is an argument that intentional homicide is legal. Within the pro-abortion group there is even debate at what stages of development intentional homicide should be permitted as a growing number believe it should include infant - I've even heard arguments from some that early stages of toddler should be included.

After all, once you're good with murdering innocent people -- why limit yourself?

 

[doubloon]

I've already asked and your ignored it.
How is fetus not simply the modern analogue to the n-word?
Both were/are used as a dehumanizing term to assuage any guilt over mistreating or killing them.

The word fetus is a medical term. How do you not know this?

 

[quietmike]

The word fetus is a medical term. How do you not know this?

As i explained before, and you ignored it, yes it is a medical term, but in common usage it takes on a different meaning.
If a pregnant woman's baby is wanted, it's just that, a baby. If it's not wanted, it's a fetus.
Remember about the Hallmark card for a fetus shower?

 

[quietmike]

Fetus simply describes a stage of development.

Egg (Not a human) -> Embryo (Now a human) -> Fetus -> Infant -> Toddler -> Adolescent etc

The term in itself is an acknowledgment that it is a human being because the term is a state of human development. Any argument otherwise is disingenuous.

The debate over abortion is really a question of at what point in human development is intentional, premeditated, homicide going to be permitted. Pro-life is an argument that intentional homicide is not morally acceptable. Pro-abortion is an argument that intentional homicide is legal. Within the pro-abortion group there is even debate at what stages of development intentional homicide should be permitted as a growing number believe it should include infant - I've even heard arguments from some that early stages of toddler should be included.

After all, once you're good with murdering innocent people -- why limit yourself?

It is odd it's the same group who say it's ok to kill a baby used to say it was ok to kill African-Americans and native Americans. In fact there's only been a 9 year period they weren't actively saying some segment of the population didn't really count as people and could be killed at will.

 

[doubloon]

We should expand abortion access in blue cities and college campuses. Let the left breed themselves, or rather, not breed themselves a new generation. This will be a self correcting problem in a few decades.

We kinda moved in that direction where the "blue" states are all in for abortion and the "red" states are all in against it (as long as they can maintain control)

But long term it might have the opposite of the desired effect as stated.

"Blue" states will make abortion, planned parenthood, free for all and the lower income class will be targeted maybe reducing their population in the long run and subsequently the tax burden and crime statistics of low income breeders.

"Red" states will force the lower income class to keep babies they can't support possibly increasing the population living in deplorable conditions looking for handouts and turning to crime. Eventually they will vote the state "blue", abortion and planned parenthood will be applied as the solution.

 

[doubloon]

As i explained before, and you ignored it, yes it is a medical term, but in common usage it takes on a different meaning.
If a pregnant woman's baby is wanted, it's just that, a baby. If it's not wanted, it's a fetus.
Remember about the Hallmark card for a fetus shower?

I'm not emo enough to be into Hallmark but you go girl. Be whatever closet gender you want to be.

A common use for the word quiet means less noisy but here we are.

Common usage can influence or change legal definitions but until the legal definitions for 'child', 'fetus', 'baby', whatev changes you'll just have to cry yourself to sleep in the closet with your Hallmark between elections.

 

[doubloon]

I could care less what the IRS determines on your tax return and it’s irrelevant to this conversation. It doesn’t change

Again, I'm not disputing against anyone's definition of life.

 

[quietmike]

I'm not emo enough to be into Hallmark but you go girl. Be whatever closet gender you want to be.

A common use for the word quiet means less noisy but here we are.

Common usage can influence or change legal definitions but until the legal definitions for 'child', 'fetus', 'baby', whatev changes you'll just have to cry yourself to sleep in the closet with your Hallmark between elections.

Better than multiple emojis, but still not a cogent response. Again, why not just be truthful and say you hate personal responsibility and consequences so much, you have no compunctions about killing someone to avoid them?

 

[doubloon]

Laughable to use tax code as a reasonable basis for this argument.

Which argument? All I'm addressing with the tax code reference is the legal definition of baby/child.

I'll add if a pregnant women is killed the perp is charged with 2 homicides.

Only if the unborn does not survive and this is only applicable to acts of violence. It has nothing to do with abortion and specifically exonerates the woman if it is her unborn.

 

[doubloon]

Better than multiple emojis, but still not a cogent response. Again, why not just be truthful and say you hate personal responsibility and consequences so much, you have no compunctions about killing someone to avoid them?

And there it is.

You almost acted like a big boy but now you're just back to the same old clown/troll self that people tell to piss of in other threads as well.

 

[quietmike]

And there it is.

You almost acted like a big boy but now you're just back to the same old clown/troll self that people tell to piss of in other threads as well.

More projection? Look at the likes for my posts in this thread vs yours.
Even.you might be smart enough to notice a pattern.

 

[Rthur]

Which argument? All I'm addressing with the tax code reference is the legal definition of baby/child.

Only if the unborn does not survive and this is only applicable to acts of violence. It has nothing to do with abortion and specifically exonerates the woman if it is her unborn.

Do you work for Facebook?

Quoting the same entity, government, in another form to validate your opinion is funny.

The reason it's relevant is the same entity, government, considers the death (of a unborn baby) killing.


R

 

[doubloon]

Better than multiple emojis, but still not a cogent response. Again, why not just be truthful and say you hate personal responsibility and consequences so much, you have no compunctions about killing someone to avoid them?

 

[doubloon]

government, considers the death (of a unborn baby) killing.


R

You are not correct as stated, only partially correct.

The legislation that allows a "perp" is charged with 2 homicides specifically states this is the case only in an act of violence. Ironically, exactly the same as the bible.

The same legislation says this is not the case in the event of an abortion or the result of a doctor's action or as a result of an action by the pregnant woman herself.

It does not simply "considers the death (of a unborn baby) killing.".

Why do people who are always wrong depend to insults to validate their argument? Is it a maturity thing? Is it an IQ thing?

 

[doubloon]

More projection? Look at the likes for my posts in this thread vs yours.
Even.you might be smart enough to notice a pattern.

 

[quietmike]

Intelligent reply? I'm not the one who can't answer very basic questions and instead posts emojis.

QED

 

[Haney]

You are still very wrong mike, no matter how you spin it . Love how you quoted my post from another thrtead , fucking stalker perv . But like I said in that post, bring a quality person into this life , or don't burden us with another dumb fuck like you .

 

[MarshallDodge]

So when slavery was legal it was OK?

We still have slavery in the US. Not saying it is right or wrong, but when income disparity gets beyond a certain point, that's slavery.

 

[quietmike]

You are still very wrong mike, no matter how you spin it . Love how you quoted my post from another thrtead , fucking stalker perv . But like I said in that post, bring a quality person into this life , or don't burden us with another dumb fuck like you .

Says the lazy fucker too inept to handle his business and would rather kill a kid than accept adult responsibility.
Seriously, you and your buddies came to a shooting forum, which you should have known was overwhelmingly conservative, and start sprewing your lefty drivel.
Grow up.

 

[quietmike]

We still have slavery in the US. Not saying it is right or wrong, but when income disparity gets beyond a certain point, that's slavery.

 

[MarshallDodge]

View attachment 8333583

That's great Tom, but today you have thieves in power.

I believe in a free market but what we have is not a free market.

Back to the scheduled broadcast

 

[quietmike]

That's great Tom, but today you have thieves in power.

I believe in a free market but what we have is not a free market.

Back to the scheduled broadcast

Only b/c they promised to give free stuff to deadbeat losers. 66% of the federal budget goes to entitlement spending.

 

[jr81452]

Yes. In fact, I encourage post term abortions for several in this thread.

 

[doubloon]

View attachment 8333583

You gotta love how he quotes the guy who owned hundreds of slaves his entire adult life, committed adultery with (maybe raped) who knows how many of them or at what ages and did not advocate for the prosecution of women who had abortions.

 

[doubloon]

We still have slavery in the US. Not saying it is right or wrong, but when income disparity gets beyond a certain point, that's slavery.

In some ways it's like a form of indentured servitude. With the path the current administration is on it almost seems we're headed toward an era where the dollar is basically the company scrip.

 

[quietmike]

You gotta love how he quotes the guy who owned hundreds of slaves his entire adult life, committed adultery with (maybe raped) who knows how many of them or at what ages and did not advocate for the prosecution of women who had abortions.

Better than a string of emojis b/c you can't answer direct questions.

 

[mkollman74]

We still have slavery in the US. Not saying it is right or wrong, but when income disparity gets beyond a certain point, that's slavery.

Nope. Words mean things...

 

[doubloon]

Once the egg becomes fertilized and implanted, there is life. ... I could care less what the IRS determines on your tax return and it’s irrelevant to this conversation.

So eggs fertilized in a test tube are not life and are fair game for chum or experiments or whatevs as well as synthetic human embryos?

Not judging, just asking.

I don't personally care what the IRS thinks about abortion but the legal definition of "baby" is relevant to this conversation because dullards keep trying to lean on the word "baby" as the sole justification for their emotional position.

As I have stated before, I personally do not advocate abortion or support abortion and have zero interest in paying for anyone's abortion. But I believe it should be "legal" (laws of man) depending on reason, timing and method.

I wouldn't disown any of my children or their children for choosing a legal abortion but that doesn't mean I support the decision.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean I have to participate.

I do not believe a 100% no abortion under any circumstances policy is the right way and I do not believe 100% get an abortion any time for any reason is the right way. Just because I believe there are circumstances where I believe it should be legal it doesn't mean I agree with the choice. Nor does it mean I have any desire to fund it any more than I have a desire to fund baby factories with welfare.

These are all things I've stated in previous posts but I'm sure some simp will be along shortly to say differently because it doesn't agree with what he thinks.

 

[Doctorwho1138]

So eggs fertilized in a test tube are not life and are fair game for chum or experiments or whatevs as well as synthetic human embryos?

Not judging, just asking.

I don't personally care what the IRS thinks about abortion but the legal definition of "baby" is relevant to this conversation because dullards keep trying to lean on the word "baby" as the sole justification for their emotional position.

As I have stated before, I personally do not advocate abortion or support abortion and have zero interest in paying for anyone's abortion. But I believe it should be "legal" (laws of man) depending on reason, timing and method.

I wouldn't disown any of my children or their children for choosing a legal abortion but that doesn't mean I support the decision.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean I have to participate.

I do not believe a 100% no abortion under any circumstances policy is the right way and I do not believe 100% get an abortion any time for any reason is the right way. Just because I believe there are circumstances where I believe it should be legal it doesn't mean I agree with the choice. Nor does it mean I have any desire to fund it any more than I have a desire to fund baby factories with welfare.

These are all things I've stated in previous posts but I'm sure some simp will be along shortly to say differently because it doesn't agree with what he thinks.

no they aren’t ok to the used in science experiments or whatever. My wife and I almost had to do in-vitro fertilization. Long story but we had the conversation and we believed each harvested fertilized egg was a life and we signed a contract to keep those frozen and to never be destroyed at our expense.

I don’t care what the legal definition of a baby is. What’a legal changes with the wind but basic morality shouldn’t. A woman just murdered a man high on pot and only has to serve 100 hours community service. That’s where we are at today in society as far as what’s ok legally and where are moral standards are. Sorry, my definition of life doesn’t change with our legal system. That man’s life was only worth 100 hours of community service per our legal system.

 

[Rthur]

So eggs fertilized in a test tube are not life and are fair game for chum or experiments or whatevs as well as synthetic human embryos?

Not judging, just asking.

I don't personally care what the IRS thinks about abortion but the legal definition of "baby" is relevant to this conversation because dullards keep trying to lean on the word "baby" as the sole justification for their emotional position.

As I have stated before, I personally do not advocate abortion or support abortion and have zero interest in paying for anyone's abortion. But I believe it should be "legal" (laws of man) depending on reason, timing and method.

I wouldn't disown any of my children or their children for choosing a legal abortion but that doesn't mean I support the decision.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean I have to participate.

I do not believe a 100% no abortion under any circumstances policy is the right way and I do not believe 100% get an abortion any time for any reason is the right way. Just because I believe there are circumstances where I believe it should be legal it doesn't mean I agree with the choice. Nor does it mean I have any desire to fund it any more than I have a desire to fund baby factories with welfare.

These are all things I've stated in previous posts but I'm sure some simp will be along shortly to say differently because it doesn't agree with what he thinks.

Interesting you end with an insult with someone whom disagrees with you.
Something about the pot and the kettle.
Trying to claim emotion is the basis of your counterparts argument is weak debate at best.
If you possessed the intellect you try to portray you'd realize the basis of those laws made by man were/are based on
religious beliefs prior to the writing of the COTUS.
Earlier version being the Magna Carta, a main point being the king/government wasn't above the law.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, are endowed by their CREATOR, with certain INALIENABLE rights...
This simple example shows the basis mentioned.
The reason of it's importance is if true, government haven't the authority to adjust/remove them.
Who is the creator?
What does inalienable mean?

A premature birth is called a baby even as it hasn't reached the full term.

What are/is the definition of values in this quote?

Now I'm sure some simp be along shortly to use his emotion to disagree.


R

 

[Haney]

Says the lazy fucker too inept to handle his business and would rather kill a kid than accept adult responsibility.
Seriously, you and your buddies came to a shooting forum, which you should have known was overwhelmingly conservative, and start sprewing your lefty drivel.
Grow up.

You are one dumb fucker, i sure hope you have no offspring . You assume a lot...too lazy to handle what ? This thread has really messed you up, shitty life you have led I assume ? Incest ? Also, now it went from killing a baby to killing a kid ? Fucking drama queen . You lose again.dumbmike.

 

[quietmike]

You are one dumb fucker, i sure hope you have no offspring . You assume a lot...too lazy to handle what ? This thread has really messed you up, shitty life you have led I assume ? Incest ? Also, now it went from killing a baby to killing a kid ? Fucking drama queen . You lose again.dumbmike.

Can't refute the argument, so let's just post some nonsensical drivel in a lame attempt to save face.
Not even good enough to be called weak.

 

[doubloon]

A premature birth is called a baby

Duh!

Thank you for your support. I totally agree with you on this point. Why would anyone disagree with this?

If it's born, it's a baby.

I never said anything about how long it had to be carried before it was born to be a baby or a person.

the basis of those laws made by man were/are based on religious beliefs

You mean like two of the places in the bible that mention abortion where it is considered punishable if it is induced by violence (exactly as legislated) and just another day at the monastery with no punishment if induced voluntarily.

 

[doubloon]

no they aren’t ok to the used in science experiments or whatever

Fair enough. So "implanted" is not a requirement, every zygote is a life?

Again, not judging, just asking.

I have no problem with this as a personal conviction. I believe it leads to issues if legislated, not the least of which is cognitive dissonance or just plain old put your head in the sand and ignore the consequences behavior.

In countries (especially under developed countries where a majority of abortions happen) which attempt to strictly enforce this type of legislation unsafe abortions skyrocket along with maternal mortality. But we can say "we did it! we stopped [legal] abortions!". But we really didn't stop abortions. And who did we "save"?

In more developed countries, like ours, people will just do off book abortions ... morning after pills, "miscarriages", go to an out of state "spa". But we feel better because we don't have to see it or count it. It's just under the bed with all the dust mice.

And let's look at those "miscarriages". If you're really serious about every zygote is a life that deserves protection then every miscarriage needs to be investigated as a possible crime. Police need to be notified just like they are when somebody shows up at the ER with a bullet in them. We need to spend that money to find out what really happened. Get that lump of cells in a bucket an advocate and a lawyer. We need to crawl up that woman's ass to find out why that lump of bloody tissue was ejected from her vagina! I just don't see where the proper resources could be supported to enforce this type of legislation at this level. It's like another war on drugs.

 

[doubloon]

The intent of the mother is irrelevant. It’s a unique human being. Whether your mother loved you or hated you and wanted to kill you is entirely irrelevant.

A woman is in labor. Let's say she's late 20s, has a couple three kids already.

Complications arise. Doctor's say to continue guarantees the death of the mother and if they abort she will live but the 'baby' won't survive.

I believe she, or whoever is acting as her proxy, has a right to make that choice.