pro-life people, is abortion okay here?

[sangha]

You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.

"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus." (Also, the fetus carrier) - Feministing


Convicted, not for killing the fetus, but for killing the "Stephanie Sanchez and her fetus"

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) was convicted of the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child in Modesto, CA

Again, convicted for killing both the mother and her fetus

They were convicted for 2 murders each.. one of the mother and one of the child.

The Court record only mentions one conviction
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/O...O2.ASP?OPINIONID=19805&FILENAME=AP-75,634.PDF

Appellant was convicted of capital murder for murdering Stephanie Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and
their thirteen-week-old unborn child on December 12, 2005. See §§ 19.03(a)(7)(A), TEX. PEN. CODE

Once conviction

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not according to the law
law.com Law Dictionary

And we are talking about the law

And not according to the medical dictionary
Medical Dictionary Online


And we are talking about a medical issue

Again, I'll repeat that you dont know how to read a dictionary

Are you trying to claim that Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary?

As for your links, it seems they contradict each other. One of them even contradicts itself, and you are trying to use this to prove I cannot read?

I guess you're another one who doesn't know how to use a dictionary. That's why you don't understand why one definition can contradict another

A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is CHILD, PRESCHOOL.



That doesn't even make sense, and is not in proper English, yet you are trying to use it to prove I cannot read a dictionary. all it proves is you can find anything on the Internet if you look hard enough. One the other hand, the definition I used came from a real dictionary, one that is recognized by every school in this country.

 

[sangha]

Where did I bring God into it?

Where did I say you brought God into it?

So far I have not even expressed my personal views on abortion, which makes you a liar, and you even lie that I am defending my position by claiming that God said so.

Never said that. Maybe it was the voices in your head

Let me see if I can explain this to you in simple terms, the fact that you are unable to wrap your unschooled intellect around a concept does not prove that that concept does not exist. In other words, it does not matter if you believe it, because your belief does not affect reality.

The fact that you still can't post a non-religious justification for opposing abortion supports my claim that it doesn't exist.

I see you can't deny that it is the anti-choicers who are trying to limit the free speech rights of others BY LAW. Instead, you try to divert attention away from your cowardly refusal to address these FACTS with a dishonest accusation

The only one who is even approaching denying people their free speech here is you. You are the one claiming that these people cannot have an opinion that you find incomprehensible, all they have tried to do is point out that you are an idiot because you think they are saying something you are not.

I see that free speech is just another of the many things you don't understand

Even if I had said that "these people cannot have an opinion that I find incomprehensible" it still wouldn't be a denial of their free speech rights.

Once again, wingnuts show their intolerance for criticism by claiming censorship.

You lied when you claimed the pro-choice side was trying to limit the anti-choice freedom to express their opinions. That's why you're trying to pretend you never said it

Show me where I said anyone is trying to keep anyone from saying anything. The pro abortion side likes to lie, that does not equate to them trying to keep the other side from talking.

You said it in an earlier post. I'll dig it up

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.

You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.

"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus." (Also, the fetus carrier) - Feministing

Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father

Convicted, not for killing the fetus, but for killing the "Stephanie Sanchez and her fetus"

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) was convicted of the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child in Modesto, CA

Again, convicted for killing both the mother and her fetus

Exactly, killing them both is killing the fetus. If I was convicted of killing your mother and father would you try to argue that I only killed your mother?

 

[sangha]

I am reposting QW's post with the part where he claims censorship bolded

This is just another dishonest trick from the loons. No different than trying to claim that the vast majority of abortions performed in this country aren't simply birth control, when obviously they are.

So pro-life people are willing to "murder" an unborn child. I guess they're not so pro-life after all

And every abortion is birth control. Only a moron, like you, would think it's not birth control.

There are two sides to the abortion debate, you are either pro abortion or anti abortion. The other labels that keep popping up, ie pro life and pro choice are just political slogans to pander to emotions. People can easily have a position on the abortion issue that opposes abortion in most cases, but recognizes that there is a medical need for it in some cases. You do not get to label your opponents as hypocrites my applying labels to them and then claiming they are not following your labels. My biggest problem is that pro abortion side routinely lies about their position, and then claims the other side is hypocritical because they do not fit the false labels opposed upon them.

I would also like to point out that you often praise the ability of your side to have their own opinions, to bad you do not allow your opponents the same options. Are you actually afraid to debate with people who can demonstrate an ability to think for themselves?

For the record, I have done nothing to stop anyone from expressing their opinion

 

[Nonelitist]

You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.

"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus." (Also, the fetus carrier) - Feministing
Convicted, not for killing the fetus, but for killing the "Stephanie Sanchez and her fetus"

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) was convicted of the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child in Modesto, CA

Again, convicted for killing both the mother and her fetus

Exactly, killing them both is killing the fetus. If I was convicted of killing your mother and father would you try to argue that I only killed your mother?

Sangha... you are probably the most ignorant person I have ever talked to. Even your lib buddies have bailed on this thread and abandoned you to your own stupidity.

You either aren't an English speaker as your first language or are uneducated. Either way, you have been shown to be a hypocritical idiot.

 

[sangha]

Bullshit

Wingnuts think that taking the power to choose away from people, and giving it to the govt, is how to limit the govts power and get the govt out of people's lives

I just said his argument is bullshit. That has nothing to do with my position, which you might understand if you ever bothered to ask my position.

Actually, when you call something bullshit, you are taking a position. Maybe it works differently in wingnut world. I wouldn't know about that

 

[sangha]

So are you saying that these dictionary are not giving a correct definition of Child as including a fetus?

It is becoming more and more obvious you have not a clue what you are talking about.

No, I'm saying it's not the right definition for this discussion, just as the common use definition of the word "consideration" has no relevance to a legal discussion of contracts

You questioned my use of the word Child to describe a fetus. We were not discussing the legal definition.
Prove me wrong or shut your idiot mouth.

Sure we are. We are talking about the law, idiot

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact that you know lots of stupid people does not surprise anyone, I'm sure.

But I noticed that you couldn't justify the "abortion is murder" without bringing God into it.

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

Read it and cry like a baby.

LOL!!!

I don't see any non-religious justification for opposing abortion. All I see is another moron claiming there is a non-religious justification for opposing abortion.

Try again

You definately belong in Texas at the ICR.

Mailing Address (for regular mail): Institute for Creation Research P. O. Box 59029
Dallas, Texas 75229 Business Address (for visits or overnight mail): Institute for Creation Research 1806 Royal Lane Dallas, Texas 75229 Contact them, I bet they could use you for your ability to ignore facts and argue that black is white.

 

[sangha]

Another example of blind faith, denying that facts exist because doing so would change your world view so much that you would be incapable of handling the cataclysm. This is exactly the mentality that led to creation science, maybe you should move to Texas and join them. They probably need more help in teaching people to ignore facts.

Once again, QU whiffs on justifying opposition to abortion without bringing God into it

Every time I have mentioned God in this discussion it is to point out that you are the one who keeps bringing Him up. Until you can point to some evidence that I am using God to defend my position you have no chance of convincing anyone that you can even read.

I have never said that you used God to justify your opposition to abortion. I have said that you have completely failed to provide a non-religious justification to oppose abortion

 

[sangha]

Are you trying to claim that Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary?

As for your links, it seems they contradict each other. One of them even contradicts itself, and you are trying to use this to prove I cannot read?

I guess you're another one who doesn't know how to use a dictionary. That's why you don't understand why one definition can contradict another

A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is CHILD, PRESCHOOL.



That doesn't even make sense, and is not in proper English, yet you are trying to use it to prove I cannot read a dictionary.

More proof that you don't know how to read a dictionary or the law

In legal terms "CHILD, PRESCHOOL" means that someone 2-5 is a CHILD who belongs to the subgroup "PRESCHOOL". It's like the polices' "Man, Caucasian"

 

[sangha]

You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.

"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus." (Also, the fetus carrier) - Feministing
Convicted, not for killing the fetus, but for killing the "Stephanie Sanchez and her fetus"

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) was convicted of the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child in Modesto, CA

Again, convicted for killing both the mother and her fetus

Exactly, killing them both is killing the fetus. If I was convicted of killing your mother and father would you try to argue that I only killed your mother?

Wrong. The law they were charged with requires the death of the mother, which has ALWAYS been considered murder. The law does not charge someone with murder for "killing a fetus". It charges someone with murder for killing the mother and the fetus.

If you killed my mother and my father, you'd be charged with two counts of murder. Both Perterson and Estrada were charged with one count.

You fail

 

[sangha]

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

Read it and cry like a baby.

LOL!!!

I don't see any non-religious justification for opposing abortion. All I see is another moron claiming there is a non-religious justification for opposing abortion.

Try again

You definately belong in Texas at the ICR.

Mailing Address (for regular mail): Institute for Creation Research P. O. Box 59029
Dallas, Texas 75229 Business Address (for visits or overnight mail): Institute for Creation Research 1806 Royal Lane Dallas, Texas 75229 Contact them, I bet they could use you for your ability to ignore facts and argue that black is white.

And still no non-religious justification for opposing abortion

Once again, you can't defend your own words.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus." (Also, the fetus carrier) - Feministing


Convicted, not for killing the fetus, but for killing the "Stephanie Sanchez and her fetus"

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Again, convicted for killing both the mother and her fetus

They were convicted for 2 murders each.. one of the mother and one of the child.

The Court record only mentions one conviction
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/PDFOPINIONINFO2.ASP?OPINIONID=19805&FILENAME=AP-75,634.PDF

Appellant was convicted of capital murder for murdering Stephanie Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and
their thirteen-week-old unborn child on December 12, 2005. See §§ 19.03(a)(7)(A), TEX. PEN. CODE

Once conviction

Appellant was convicted of capital murder for murdering Stephanie Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and
their thirteen-week-old unborn child on December 12, 2005

Look at that, he managed to prove himself wrong twice in one post.

First, the record clearly indicates that he was convicted for killing both of them, not just the mother.
Second, it clearly calls the 13 week old fetus a child, thus proving that child is the proper, legal, word to use to describe a fetus.

You are clearly superior in debate skills to everyone here, and we should all just run home and hide, never to post again.

 

[ConHog]

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

Read it and cry like a baby.

LOL!!!

I don't see any non-religious justification for opposing abortion. All I see is another moron claiming there is a non-religious justification for opposing abortion.

Try again

You definately belong in Texas at the ICR.

Mailing Address (for regular mail): Institute for Creation Research P. O. Box 59029
Dallas, Texas 75229 Business Address (for visits or overnight mail): Institute for Creation Research 1806 Royal Lane Dallas, Texas 75229 Contact them, I bet they could use you for your ability to ignore facts and argue that black is white.

hes a fucking moron, you tell him point blank "some people who don't believe in God consider abortion to be murder" and comes back with "another wingnut can't give a non religious reason to oppose abortion" atheists using God to oppose abortion, ok then.........

 

[ConHog]

They were convicted for 2 murders each.. one of the mother and one of the child.

The Court record only mentions one conviction
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/PDFOPINIONINFO2.ASP?OPINIONID=19805&FILENAME=AP-75,634.PDF

Appellant was convicted of capital murder for murdering Stephanie Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and
their thirteen-week-old unborn child on December 12, 2005. See §§ 19.03(a)(7)(A), TEX. PEN. CODE

Once conviction

Appellant was convicted of capital murder for murdering Stephanie Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and
their thirteen-week-old unborn child on December 12, 2005

Look at that, he managed to prove himself wrong twice in one post.

First, the record clearly indicates that he was convicted for killing both of them, not just the mother.
Second, it clearly calls the 13 week old fetus a child, thus proving that child is the proper, legal, word to use to describe a fetus.

You are clearly superior in debate skills to everyone here, and we should all just run home and hide, never to post again.

That gonna leave a mark

 

[Nonelitist]

No, I'm saying it's not the right definition for this discussion, just as the common use definition of the word "consideration" has no relevance to a legal discussion of contracts

You questioned my use of the word Child to describe a fetus. We were not discussing the legal definition.
Prove me wrong or shut your idiot mouth.

Sure we are. We are talking about the law, idiot

No... we aren't.

My opinion is that when an egg is fertilized, it is a life. That is the basis of my opinion.

That isn't the laws definition. So I understand that my definition isn't the laws.

So what?.. I still stand by my convictions.

 

[sangha]

The Court record only mentions one conviction
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/PDFOPINIONINFO2.ASP?OPINIONID=19805&FILENAME=AP-75,634.PDF

Once conviction

Appellant was convicted of capital murder for murdering Stephanie Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and
their thirteen-week-old unborn child on December 12, 2005

Look at that, he managed to prove himself wrong twice in one post.

First, the record clearly indicates that he was convicted for killing both of them, not just the mother.
Second, it clearly calls the 13 week old fetus a child, thus proving that child is the proper, legal, word to use to describe a fetus.

You are clearly superior in debate skills to everyone here, and we should all just run home and hide, never to post again.

That gonna leave a mark

They were convicted on ONE COUNT of murder

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did I bring God into it?

Where did I say you brought God into it?

So far I have not even expressed my personal views on abortion, which makes you a liar, and you even lie that I am defending my position by claiming that God said so.

Never said that. Maybe it was the voices in your head



The fact that you still can't post a non-religious justification for opposing abortion supports my claim that it doesn't exist.




I see that free speech is just another of the many things you don't understand

Even if I had said that "these people cannot have an opinion that I find incomprehensible" it still wouldn't be a denial of their free speech rights.

Once again, wingnuts show their intolerance for criticism by claiming censorship.

You lied when you claimed the pro-choice side was trying to limit the anti-choice freedom to express their opinions. That's why you're trying to pretend you never said it

Show me where I said anyone is trying to keep anyone from saying anything. The pro abortion side likes to lie, that does not equate to them trying to keep the other side from talking.

You said it in an earlier post. I'll dig it up

I don't have to post a justification for being anti abortion, because I have not said I am anti abortion.

 

[Nonelitist]

They were convicted for 2 murders each.. one of the mother and one of the child.

The Court record only mentions one conviction
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/PDFOPINIONINFO2.ASP?OPINIONID=19805&FILENAME=AP-75,634.PDF

Appellant was convicted of capital murder for murdering Stephanie Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and
their thirteen-week-old unborn child on December 12, 2005. See §§ 19.03(a)(7)(A), TEX. PEN. CODE

Once conviction

Appellant was convicted of capital murder for murdering Stephanie Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and
their thirteen-week-old unborn child on December 12, 2005

Look at that, he managed to prove himself wrong twice in one post.

First, the record clearly indicates that he was convicted for killing both of them, not just the mother.
Second, it clearly calls the 13 week old fetus a child, thus proving that child is the proper, legal, word to use to describe a fetus.

You are clearly superior in debate skills to everyone here, and we should all just run home and hide, never to post again.

Argument over. Sangha.. you lost and lost bad. Your lib friends must be pround to have such a statesmen representing them....hahahahaha

Stupid child.