Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Where did I bring God into it?
Where did I say you brought God into it?
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.
QW said: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.
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.
Argument over. Sangha.. you lost and lost bad. Your lib friends must be pround to have such a statesmen representing them....hahahahaha
Stupid child.
Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?
I am reposting QW's post with the part where he claims censorship bolded
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
Don't you know that GOD has a history of approving of incest?
You are a fucking retard.
What, never heard of Abraham?
Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?
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
Man charged with murder of unborn baby* - Police Blotter - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -
Man charged with murder of unborn baby... mother didn't die.
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.
Your opinion on what "a life" is has no bearing on the law.
And your "convictions" have no basis in fact. If a fertilized egg, which isn't even a fetus yet, has rights, then mothers could be prosecuted for smoking, drinking alcohol, or doing anything that could harm the fetus.
A fetus has no rights, which is why you can't post anything in the law that says a fetus has rights
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
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"
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.........
Where did I say you brought God into it?
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 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.
I never said anything about whether or not you are anti-choice. You said that there's a non-religious justification for opposing abortion.
But there isn't. That's why you refuse to post one.
I am reposting QW's post with the part where he claims censorship bolded
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
Nice try.
You are not allowing your opponents the same options because you are insisting that the only possible justification for thir position is religion, and you are further insisting that they cannot be anti abortion and recognize it is sometimes medically justified.
You are the one who thinks the pro abortion side is wonderful because they can recognize nuances and have different opinions, and still come together in support of abortion, yet you deny the anti abortion side is anything but partisan hacks, insist that they just parrot talking points, and are generally incapable of thinking.
None of that says that you are telling them they cannot talk, it is just your opinion of them and their motives.
If you were capable of intelligent thought you would know that, and understand the differences. As you are actually incapable of thought, cannot recognize facts when they are right in front of you, and have blind faith that you are the only one who is right, you are doing exactly what I said. You are denying that your opponents are capable fo thinking for themselves, even when they agree that abortion is sometimes justified.
And you think they are hypocrites.
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
Yes, my position is that his argument is bullshit. That has nothing to do with my position on abortion, which you do not know.
Man charged with murder of unborn baby* - Police Blotter - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -
Man charged with murder of unborn baby... mother didn't die.
"charged" =/= "convicted"
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.
Your opinion on what "a life" is has no bearing on the law.
And your "convictions" have no basis in fact. If a fertilized egg, which isn't even a fetus yet, has rights, then mothers could be prosecuted for smoking, drinking alcohol, or doing anything that could harm the fetus.
A fetus has no rights, which is why you can't post anything in the law that says a fetus has rights
They in fact can be prosecuted in many states
Laws Against Pregnant Mothers Smoking, Using Drugs by Joel Hendon
in fact FIFTEEN states consider it to be child abuse
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SADP.pdf
No state specifically criminalizes drug use during pregnancy
