Not the view you were looking for: A conservative woman's view on abortion

[jknowgood]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Science will prove that wrong eventually. Then you will be known as a murderer.

 

[mdk]

TemplarKormac

Other then your imagination, where did I say "clump of cells" again?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Carly Fiorina also agrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans.

And what bearing does her views on climate change have in a debate about abortion, Carbine?

 

[2aguy]

14 week old human life .. liberals say, let's torture and kill it...

View attachment 42829

Would you put a woman to death for aborting that fetus?

it is not against the law.......you can't....

 

[jknowgood]

So when is a person a person?

Most agree that a fetus becomes a baby by: first, being born, and second, by being able to survive outside the womb.

A preemie can survive after birth with life support equipment. A zygote cannot.

Then lifetime welfare recipients should be cut off. They aren't humans unless they can survive without government? I mean national forest have signs that say, don't feed the animals. Because they will become dependent. Same thing.

 

[Political Junky]

Many women of all political persuasions have abortions. It's just easier for well-off women. They call it a D&C.

 

[2aguy]

We play God all the time when we decide what creations will live or die for often the most frivolous reasons. Likewise, the people demanding that women must carry out an unwanted pregnancy from conception to birth falter when it comes to inacting the death penalty. Choosing life or death.

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

 

[2aguy]

Proof that the radical left isn't interested in "common ground" and proof that the "view" babes go for the throat.

What's the common ground between one person who is pro-choice and another who thinks abortion is murder?

Getting through to the pro-choicer that their "choice" is the end of a human life....

 

[Coyote]

What does this resemble?

What does that resemble? Two cells, an embryo, a human being. To you, it's nothing more than garbage.

Don't assume you know what it is to me.

No. It doesn't. Neither do dolphins, chimpanzees or dogs even though they are far more sentient and feeling than a blastocyst.

So, you are placing the unborn of other animals in higher regard than an unborn child, then? Sick, Coyote, sick I tell you.

No. I'm placing born, existing creatures in higher regard than a blastocyst.

 

[Coyote]

We play God all the time when we decide what creations will live or die for often the most frivolous reasons. Likewise, the people demanding that women must carry out an unwanted pregnancy from conception to birth falter when it comes to inacting the death penalty. Choosing life or death.

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

I'm saying either human life has a consistent value or it has an arbritrary value. It's clear in your mind that human life has an arbritrary value.

 

[Coyote]

Proof that the radical left isn't interested in "common ground" and proof that the "view" babes go for the throat.

What's the common ground between one person who is pro-choice and another who thinks abortion is murder?

Getting through to the pro-choicer that their "choice" is the end of a human life....

That's where you totally don't get it. Pro-choice simply means that the pregnant woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry through a pregnancy. It says nothing about what that choice would be and most of all - it does not make that choice FOR her.

 

[Coyote]

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

It is an accurate phrase.

Accurate meaning what? What will that so called clump become? As opposed to other "clumps" that won't become anything viable?

You people use the term "clump of cells" like it's universal to every aspect of the human body. Some cells become special things if you don't kill it. Other clumps are actually trying to kill the person they are in. You can't seem to see the difference.

In the earliest stages of development it is nothing more than a clump of cells with potential. That is it.

And what does a cancer clump of cells have the chance to become? You want to treat them both the same but they aren't. Cancer would be easy to cure if all you had to do was not go have sex with someone and not get it. A child deserves a bit more respect and consideration than that don't you think? Cancer is a clump of cells you have no control over. A child is the result of your own actions and can never happen without your consent and participation.

That's actually not true.

 

[Ernie S.]

We play God all the time when we decide what creations will live or die for often the most frivolous reasons. Likewise, the people demanding that women must carry out an unwanted pregnancy from conception to birth falter when it comes to inacting the death penalty. Choosing life or death.

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

I'm saying either human life has a consistent value or it has an arbritrary value. It's clear in your mind that human life has an arbritrary value.

Human life has consistent value from conception through death.That value only becomes arbitrary as a result of its own actions.
No fetus, to my knowledge, has ever been convicted of a capitol offense.

 

[2aguy]

We play God all the time when we decide what creations will live or die for often the most frivolous reasons. Likewise, the people demanding that women must carry out an unwanted pregnancy from conception to birth falter when it comes to inacting the death penalty. Choosing life or death.

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

I'm saying either human life has a consistent value or it has an arbritrary value. It's clear in your mind that human life has an arbritrary value.

Are you really that stupid....the value of a human life is innocence.....the baby has committed no crime and killed no one, and doesn't deserve the death penalty. You morons think the baby deserves the death penalty simply because you can't see it yet, and the serial, rapist murderer deserves all of your effort to keep him alive.

Your moral compass is not broken...it does not exist...please go get one.

 

[Ernie S.]

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

It is an accurate phrase.

Accurate meaning what? What will that so called clump become? As opposed to other "clumps" that won't become anything viable?

You people use the term "clump of cells" like it's universal to every aspect of the human body. Some cells become special things if you don't kill it. Other clumps are actually trying to kill the person they are in. You can't seem to see the difference.

In the earliest stages of development it is nothing more than a clump of cells with potential. That is it.

And what does a cancer clump of cells have the chance to become? You want to treat them both the same but they aren't. Cancer would be easy to cure if all you had to do was not go have sex with someone and not get it. A child deserves a bit more respect and consideration than that don't you think? Cancer is a clump of cells you have no control over. A child is the result of your own actions and can never happen without your consent and participation.

That's actually not true.

How often is it not true? one in 10 million births, perhaps?

 

[2aguy]

Proof that the radical left isn't interested in "common ground" and proof that the "view" babes go for the throat.

What's the common ground between one person who is pro-choice and another who thinks abortion is murder?

Getting through to the pro-choicer that their "choice" is the end of a human life....

That's where you totally don't get it. Pro-choice simply means that the pregnant woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry through a pregnancy. It says nothing about what that choice would be and most of all - it does not make that choice FOR her.

So instead of saying she is killing her baby...which is what she is doing..that is the truth and the reality, you use the word pregnancy to hide the truth. Makes it easier to kill the baby, doesn't it?

 

[Coyote]

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

It is an accurate phrase.

Accurate meaning what? What will that so called clump become? As opposed to other "clumps" that won't become anything viable?

You people use the term "clump of cells" like it's universal to every aspect of the human body. Some cells become special things if you don't kill it. Other clumps are actually trying to kill the person they are in. You can't seem to see the difference.

In the earliest stages of development it is nothing more than a clump of cells with potential. That is it.

And what does a cancer clump of cells have the chance to become? You want to treat them both the same but they aren't. Cancer would be easy to cure if all you had to do was not go have sex with someone and not get it. A child deserves a bit more respect and consideration than that don't you think? Cancer is a clump of cells you have no control over. A child is the result of your own actions and can never happen without your consent and participation.

What does cancer have to do with anything?

You say " A child deserves a bit more respect and consideration than that don't you think?" as if you think you know what goes through a woman's mind when she is considering whether to carry through a pregnancy or end it.

 

[Coyote]

It is an accurate phrase.

Accurate meaning what? What will that so called clump become? As opposed to other "clumps" that won't become anything viable?

You people use the term "clump of cells" like it's universal to every aspect of the human body. Some cells become special things if you don't kill it. Other clumps are actually trying to kill the person they are in. You can't seem to see the difference.

In the earliest stages of development it is nothing more than a clump of cells with potential. That is it.

And what does a cancer clump of cells have the chance to become? You want to treat them both the same but they aren't. Cancer would be easy to cure if all you had to do was not go have sex with someone and not get it. A child deserves a bit more respect and consideration than that don't you think? Cancer is a clump of cells you have no control over. A child is the result of your own actions and can never happen without your consent and participation.

That's actually not true.

How often is it not true? one in 10 million births, perhaps?

I don't know - but it's not relevant. His statement was flat out wrong.

 

[Coyote]

Proof that the radical left isn't interested in "common ground" and proof that the "view" babes go for the throat.

What's the common ground between one person who is pro-choice and another who thinks abortion is murder?

Getting through to the pro-choicer that their "choice" is the end of a human life....

That's where you totally don't get it. Pro-choice simply means that the pregnant woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry through a pregnancy. It says nothing about what that choice would be and most of all - it does not make that choice FOR her.

So instead of saying she is killing her baby...which is what she is doing..that is the truth and the reality, you use the word pregnancy to hide the truth. Makes it easier to kill the baby, doesn't it?

So it's not a pregnancy? Then what the eff is it? Buns in the oven? What do you think women call it? They call it being pregnant. A pregnancy. That is what it is.

 

[Coyote]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Science will prove that wrong eventually. Then you will be known as a murderer.

Science doesn't determine the concept of personhood.