Game Over, Hillary

A law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as a "partial birth abortion," except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother 70%

Permit me to show how uninformed the poll respondents are by focusing on the partial birth response.

If the fetus will not survive, but the mother will, 70% say no abortion. If carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause irreparable psychological damage, 70% say no abortion. If carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause permanent physical injury, 70% say no abortion. If the damaged or injured mother will be rendered incapable of taking care of other children already in this world, 70% say no abortion.

And if all of these circumstance will occur, but the doctor cannot certify the mother will die, 70% say no abortion. That's not pro-life; that's pre-life.
 
What a vile attempt to distort my quote. You really are a worthless piece of shit.

Scalia listed these as areas the state should be able criminalize: "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity".

He did NOT include abortion in that list. So when I asked, "Is Scalia wanting to criminalize any of your hobbies?", only a putrid, disturbed person would read that list to include abortion.

I'm looking out for your rights too, goat fucker.

fwiw, I don't think even a goat would have him.
 
Permit me to show how uninformed the poll respondents are by focusing on the partial birth response.

If the fetus will not survive, but the mother will, 70% say no abortion. If carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause irreparable psychological damage, 70% say no abortion. If carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause permanent physical injury, 70% say no abortion. If the damaged or injured mother will be rendered incapable of taking care of other children already in this world, 70% say no abortion.

And if all of these circumstance will occur, but the doctor cannot certify the mother will die, 70% say no abortion. That's not pro-life; that's pre-life.

We all know that everyone but YOU is uniformed. Loser.
 
More from the board's new Arrogant Asshole. Maybe we should have a poll to determine if Dogger or Larkinn win the title?

Say it ain't so!

Are you falling out of love with me RGS? I sort of enjoy your poodle like qualities. What can I do to win you back you cute little defender of child rapists, you cuddly ol bear you.
 
Considering we aren't talking about any of those issues, you must be a bit confused.

actually, we ARE talking about abortion issues and that which is indicative of a CONSENSUS.


poor guy. What, is this like the 6th or 7th time i've given you some knuckle love in a thread about abortions?


evidence sure is a bitch to deal with in your fantasy world of bloviated options, eh?
 
Permit me to show how uninformed the poll respondents are by focusing on the partial birth response.

If the fetus will not survive, but the mother will, 70% say no abortion. If carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause irreparable psychological damage, 70% say no abortion. If carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause permanent physical injury, 70% say no abortion. If the damaged or injured mother will be rendered incapable of taking care of other children already in this world, 70% say no abortion.

And if all of these circumstance will occur, but the doctor cannot certify the mother will die, 70% say no abortion. That's not pro-life; that's pre-life.


hey, YOU can cry about the results all you want. YOU can dive into tearing apart the test questions, hell, I've done the same within the last 2 days navigating around larkin's inability to comprehend this issue.

But, I assure you that trying to inject your schema into the data set is as worthless as projecting what YOU think the results would be after tweaking a few test question variables. You don't have that data. You also can't read peoples minds so, while I applaud your willingness to dissect the test method you still don't have anything with which to offer rebuttal to my source. Indeed, you just don't get to frame the results around your opinion.
 
why does it seem that most threads on this forum fade into choleric insults? cant people have a discussion without getting upset when people disagree?
 
why does it seem that most threads on this forum fade into choleric insults? cant people have a discussion without getting upset when people disagree?

exactly...especially over such trivial things as Ms. magazine...
 
actually, we ARE talking about abortion issues and that which is indicative of a CONSENSUS.

We are talking about when a child can be aborted, not about requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives.

poor guy. What, is this like the 6th or 7th time i've given you some knuckle love in a thread about abortions?

Wow, you are deluded aren't you?
 
lol of course the doeton put Ms. magazine in with the caveat (reputable -lol)

had to hand the shogun sompin to make the whole thang sportin.


:cool:
 
genetic make=up?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

holy shit...so the buger i just blew out my nose can now get me arrest for destruction of human life

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
It's evidence indicative of that CONSENSUS you seem to think is a myth.



Don't blame me if you couldn't pass a Testing Methods class to save your life.
 
and little shogun's toy argument showing how most mericans see themselves as pro-choice?

lol...that's from how the question is formulated?

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :rofl:

semantics?

actually it's called factual biology.

yeah zygots equal babies.

lol.

is that before they get the tail or after?

:rofl: :cool:
 
genetic make=up?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

holy shit...so the buger i just blew out my nose can now get me arrest for destruction of human life

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


is your booger genetically a human individual like a zygote is?
 

Forum List

Back
Top