A question for the anti-choice crowd.

Death Penalty sounds good to me. Enforce some damn personal responsibility back into America and maybe common sense will make a return as well! Don't want a kid? A. Don't have sex or B. Get sterilized or C. KNOW damn well your urge can lead to another life and YOU are responsible for raising that child. Society has been allowed to go to hell and personal responsibility is a direct result of letting people do whatever the hell they want. Oh and a BABY is not a choice. HAVING SEX is a choice. So you make the CHOICE to have SEX it leads to a baby. The pro baby murderers are the perfect example of mentally deficient morons that have ZERO responsibility.
 
We don't. Science says a fetus isn't a person yet, and they are often spontaneously aborted, and you sometimes have to induce abortion to save the health or life of the woman. That is the science, which you refuse to accept.
Nonsense. Science says a near full term unborn baby is a living human being. Pro-aborts strenuously try to deny that.
And I would have no problem with your position if it were only "near full term" abortions that you wanted to limit. But, it isn't, is it?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
By the same token, pro-aborts don't REALLY want to just preserve abortion for rape and incest victims, do they? Yet, that is what we hear ad nauseum when we talk about wanting to protect minor girls, for example, from making hasty, permanent decisions driven by fear. At this point, I know our society will never accept a ban on abortion. That doesn't make me any less determined to find common ground and save as many lives as I can.

Not from me you don't. The "rape, incest, and health of the mother" bullshit are the anti-choice exceptions they always add to make taking the choice away from women more palatable. So, long as a fetus is non-viable, it is not a person, and is therefore the property of a pregnant woman.

However, you have again removed this argument to the abstract. Let's keep it grounded, shall we? Based on your position, what should be the punishment of the woman who chooses to have an abortion?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
 
I'll let the healthy fetuses, aborted for no reason, know. I wonder, what was their consent for said abortion?

I don't consider the life of the fetus the main issue. I consider the fact of whether the impregnating act was or was not consensual to be the determining factor. It's about Consequences more than the life of the child for me.

Wow, just wow. What else do you put above the life of a child? Wow.
 
Nonsense. Science says a near full term unborn baby is a living human being. Pro-aborts strenuously try to deny that.
And I would have no problem with your position if it were only "near full term" abortions that you wanted to limit. But, it isn't, is it?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
By the same token, pro-aborts don't REALLY want to just preserve abortion for rape and incest victims, do they? Yet, that is what we hear ad nauseum when we talk about wanting to protect minor girls, for example, from making hasty, permanent decisions driven by fear. At this point, I know our society will never accept a ban on abortion. That doesn't make me any less determined to find common ground and save as many lives as I can.

Not from me you don't. The "rape, incest, and health of the mother" bullshit are the anti-choice exceptions they always add to make taking the choice away from women more palatable. So, long as a fetus is non-viable, it is not a person, and is therefore the property of a pregnant woman.

However, you have again removed this argument to the abstract. Let's keep it grounded, shall we? Based on your position, what should be the punishment of the woman who chooses to have an abortion?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?
As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.
 
Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.
So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women…

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
Anyone who is irresponsible enough to get pregnant when they can't afford it or can't handle being a parent is an absolute detriment to society.

So judgmental, and so ignorant ^^^.
You ride the short bus, don't you?

I have no idea what "ride the short bus means". That said, I'll explain my earlier post since it was beyond your comprehension.

I wrote two DOJ (Dept. of Justice) VAWA (violence against women) grants and managed them along with supervising a unit of deputies in a domestic violence unit. One way violent abusers keep their women from leaving them is by getting them pregnant or beating them if or when they choose to use contraceptives.
 
And I would have no problem with your position if it were only "near full term" abortions that you wanted to limit. But, it isn't, is it?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
By the same token, pro-aborts don't REALLY want to just preserve abortion for rape and incest victims, do they? Yet, that is what we hear ad nauseum when we talk about wanting to protect minor girls, for example, from making hasty, permanent decisions driven by fear. At this point, I know our society will never accept a ban on abortion. That doesn't make me any less determined to find common ground and save as many lives as I can.

Not from me you don't. The "rape, incest, and health of the mother" bullshit are the anti-choice exceptions they always add to make taking the choice away from women more palatable. So, long as a fetus is non-viable, it is not a person, and is therefore the property of a pregnant woman.

However, you have again removed this argument to the abstract. Let's keep it grounded, shall we? Based on your position, what should be the punishment of the woman who chooses to have an abortion?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?
As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.
I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
 
By the same token, pro-aborts don't REALLY want to just preserve abortion for rape and incest victims, do they? Yet, that is what we hear ad nauseum when we talk about wanting to protect minor girls, for example, from making hasty, permanent decisions driven by fear. At this point, I know our society will never accept a ban on abortion. That doesn't make me any less determined to find common ground and save as many lives as I can.

Not from me you don't. The "rape, incest, and health of the mother" bullshit are the anti-choice exceptions they always add to make taking the choice away from women more palatable. So, long as a fetus is non-viable, it is not a person, and is therefore the property of a pregnant woman.

However, you have again removed this argument to the abstract. Let's keep it grounded, shall we? Based on your position, what should be the punishment of the woman who chooses to have an abortion?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?
As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.
I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?
Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?

"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."
 
Not from me you don't. The "rape, incest, and health of the mother" bullshit are the anti-choice exceptions they always add to make taking the choice away from women more palatable. So, long as a fetus is non-viable, it is not a person, and is therefore the property of a pregnant woman.

However, you have again removed this argument to the abstract. Let's keep it grounded, shall we? Based on your position, what should be the punishment of the woman who chooses to have an abortion?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?
As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.
I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?
Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?

"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."
At what point did I disagree with that position? I have said, repeatedly, I would have no problem with your position, if it were limited to late- term, viable abortions. However, you do not want to only limit late-term, viable abortions, do you?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
 
That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?
As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.
I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?
Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?

"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."
At what point did I disagree with that position? I have said, repeatedly, I would have no problem with your position, if it were limited to late- term, viable abortions. However, you do not want to only limit late-term, viable abortions, do you?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
It isn't up to me, that is what I said numerous times. It should be up the citizens of the state.
 
There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?
As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.
I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?
Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?

"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."
At what point did I disagree with that position? I have said, repeatedly, I would have no problem with your position, if it were limited to late- term, viable abortions. However, you do not want to only limit late-term, viable abortions, do you?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
It isn't up to me, that is what I said numerous times. It should be up the citizens of the state.
No, it shouldn't. Prior to viability, abortion is no one's business but the woman, and the doctor involved. You only make this stupid comment, because you don't want to own your own position.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
 
How about using contraception to avoid the dastardly mistake? Nobody in their right mind would argue against prevention.
 
Bull...most contraceptives today are highly highly effective. They should not be free but should be cheap and easy to access. Pro lifers are pro life until the child is born. If money or govt assistance is given to the child they cry and whine like little babies cuz they don't want their precious tax dollars supporting the kid. We need to encourage abstinence yes and perhaps contraceptive use to prevent millions of unwanted pregnancies.
 
Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?
Herr Trump also followed the "pro-life" argument to its logical conclusion and rightly stated that the woman SHOULD face some type of punishment.

Needless to say, some drama ensued as a result of it, and he caused many a conservative to hem and haw for excuses.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
 
Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?
I see you think you are pretty clever. Since you prefer the "anti choice" label for pro-lifers, I shall call you pro abortion.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, all states which made abortion illegal penalized abortionists, but a handful also made it a crime for the mother to procure an abortion. While quite a few abortionists were prosecuted, very few mothers were.

The feelings about punishing the mother vary. On one end of the pro-life spectrum, some pro-lifers feel the mother is a victim of a predatory abortion industry. At the other end of the pro-life spectrum, some pro-lifers feel the mother should be punished.

I'm sure you pro abortionists would like to scare women into the pro abortion camp by claiming that if abortion was made illegal, women will go to prison for life if they get an abortion. The pro abortion camp told a lot of lies to women, and still tell the lie that thousands of women were dying every year from back alley abortions before Roe v Wade.

As for Trump, before he decided to be a Republican last year, he was a far left liberal and very pro abortion. He stated so publicly. That's why he totally flubbed the question about whether or not women should be punished. Since he's been pro abortion until five minutes ago, he never had a pro-life thought in his entire life.

He is a poser. He is a man who has made his fortune by preying on human weaknesses. From his temple casinos which milk the poor and middle class, to his reality TV shows which encourage people to exhibit the worst of human behaviors. Lust, envy, greed, betrayal, and gluttony.
 
Last edited:
Before Trump registered as a Republican, he was on record as being “very pro-choice”, right up to the ninth month of pregnancy. “I am pro-choice in every respect.”






After Trump registered as a Republican and announced he was running for President, you could see the chameleon huckster change his colors in real time in his natural habitat, television:

TAPPER: Let me ask you about a few social issues because they haven't been issues you have been talking about for several years. I know you're opposed to abortion.

TRUMP: Right. I'm Pro-Choice.

TAPPER: You're pro-choice or pro-life?

TRUMP: I'm pro-life. I'm sorry.




As those of you who have been on this forum a while know, I am pro-life, and always have been. Let me ask all of you pro-lifers out there something. Have you EVER in your life accidentally identified yourself as pro-choice?


Me, neither.



And was it a Freudian slip when he apologized for being pro-life? “I’m pro-life. I’m sorry.”


Having been “very pro-choice” all his life, it was not surprising this huckster a few months later completely fumbled a fundamental question about the abortion issue. When asked if women should be punished for getting an abortion, Trump gave five different answers in three days!



Face it. On the abortion issue, Donald Trump is a far left liberal faking he is pro-life…and you know it.


Before:
ohqz2w.jpg

I'm very pro-choice. Right up to the ninth month of pregnancy. I have New York values.

After:
28rkqyu.jpg

Those bitches who abort should go to prison.


Is handed a note:
296lt3c.jpg

Things are unclear.


Is handed another note:
sdl4zc.jpg

D. The woman is a victim. Final answer.
 
Murder is murder. You either sanction it, or you don't.
A good reason not to call abortion murder, which it isn't. Not even in the Bible.
The reason abortion is not mentioned in the Bible is because it was unthinkable. It wasn't even a consideration.

There is abundant evidence in the Bible that God considered you to be a human in the womb.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top