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.
What GG was doing was talking about what fetuses might be called (baby, thing, whatever). I simply see the words as attempts to sidestep accountability, and excuse what is cold-blooded murder.No, nobody ever said you were anybody’s employee. You may not even be employable. What is clear is only that you were off-topic, and also seem totally unable to understand what Golfing Gator was saying when you characterized his pertinent and personal remarks in comment #164 as … “just word games.”
How have I "fled from the entire topic of thread", in your opinion ?Your tail has never left those quivering haunches. You've fled from the entire topic of thread.
I accept your concession with patience and grace.
The fetus stage does not begin until around week ten after conception, when the fetus itself is still less than 2 inches long. At this stage the “heart” is not developed, though a pulsing of nerves that will become the heart often is. Your “clump of cells” usually refers to the earlier zygotic stages called a morula or blastula — but “clump of cells” is definitely not a useful scientific term for the amazing reality of a healthy evolving zygote or embryo in the womb.
Of course in talking about a woman’s right to have an abortion we are mainly discussing the right of a developed human being — a woman — to take action to end her own pregnancy. Scientifically, one could say she is preventing the further development of an embryo or fetus, which in most cases she did not want conceived and is not “willing” to nurture in her womb or give birth to.
Of course many abortions are done for medical reasons, because the pregnant woman’s life is threatened or because — thanks to scientific screening — the mother and her doctors discover the fetus will die before birth, or be born and die shortly after, or “may” be born but live with terrible deformities. In cases like the latter one mentioned, the mother’s decision may be agonizing … but should be determinative.
Maybe you should spend less time typing nonsense and spend more time in a dictionary. Abortion has NOTHING to do with REPRODUCTION.This is what “reproductive freedom” for women means.
So you dont want to answer this question ?
Not too interesting to me. I dont use the bible as my guide.Look, they are you words....I will post them again so you can remember what you posted....
2. I never said anything about abortion being in the bible, but it is in the bible under th words "Thou shalt not kill."
But those of us who have read the Bible know that it is chock full of killing. David was honored for killing more than 1000 men.
The people of Israel killed entire civilizations, men, women and children. Hell they even killed all the livestock.
Thus it seems using the bible as our guide, not all killing is bad.
Not too interesting to me. I dont use the bible as my guide.
i certainly am! In fact your supposed “gotcha” question just shows your own childish illusion that “morality” and “justice” all center around your own individual — and quite possibly insignificant — life.Are the abortion supporters willing to say that it would have been OK if their mothers had aborted them, and the life they now live had not ever happened ?
FALSE! This very limited and simplistic view completely ignores the MAIN PARTICIPANT in the scenario > the person whose life is being taken away. As usual, liberals only focus on the "woman" who has inconvenience (albiet a major inconvenience) at stake, as compared to the typically overlooked preborn person, for whom it's a matter of life & death.a woman who refuses to carry a fetus or embryo for nine months to birth is — as a general rule — acting within her moral and natural right.
In what post, do you claim that ?Yet you are the one that brought it up.
Weird.
So if you "certainly" are "willing to say that it would have been OK if their mothers had aborted them", and you would not be alive now, and then you would be OK to not be alive right now, and you would be OK with dying, right ?i certainly am! In fact your supposed “gotcha” question just shows your own childish illusion that “morality” and “justice” all center around your own individual — and quite possibly insignificant — life.
Most supporters of a woman’s right to end an unwanted pregnancy would probably agree with the way I already answered it. To see my response just press the link below:
Supreme Court Ensures, For Now, Broad Access To Abortion Medication
Yet many states will charge someone with two murders if they kill a pregnant woman, and I am pretty ok with that. I understand that too. Especially if the pregnant woman was close to term and wanted a new child in their life. It's an understandingly human reaction.Overly emotional, a little...www.usmessageboard.com
You seem really a bit slow here. I answered this question twice already and you still don’t get it! If I weren’t here I would not have opinions on anything!So if you "certainly" are "willing to say that it would have been OK if their mothers had aborted them", and you would not be alive now, and then you would be OK to not be alive right now, and you would be OK with dying, right ?
You are mistaken. I was NOT the one who brought up the "bible". The Post # 146 of mine that you just posted, was a RESPONSE to a post from Stann, who brought it up in Post # 142.
I wasn't asking for your life story or philosophy. I just meant to point out that pro-abortionists are OK with abortions for everyoneYou seem really a bit slow here. I answered this question twice already and you still don’t get it! If I weren’t here I would not have opinions on anything!
By the way, slowpoke, there is a world of difference between NEVER having been born and … having been born, raised as a conscious and conscientious human being, and then being “murdered.”
But even that is not what you actually counterposed! You talked about being “OK with dying” — another issue entirely. Try to argue more clearly, ok?
While I certainly now don’t look forward to death, I accept “dying” as an inevitable part of what it means to be a human being. I am 74 years old and a grandfather. I’m happy to have a family and a young granddaughter to pass on my bits of wisdom and small legacy to. That is quite enough for me. If I actually educate others too, that is … an unexpected bonus.
Oh … I also want my granddaughter to be free and happy, and I certainly hope when my time comes I do not selfishly hold onto a miserable pointless life at her and my whole family’s expense. I’ve had some scares and I think I have my heart and mind at peace and in order. But I’m human. Who knows how I will feel in the future, or what that future will bring?
No, I don't think young children and teenagers should be having babies. I've never said that, but you claim to know what I think. Presumptuous posters on the internet are a dime a dozen.So you believe young children and teenagers should be having babies. I don't think so. The main reason we're begining to have all these crazy conversations is because even the people's of the advanced nations are feeling the affects of overpopulation on a dying planet. That last thing we need in this world is more people. The whole world should adopt the one child per family model now before it gets even worse. Abortion needs to be encouraged even more and access should be improved and make it no cost. These women are saving the planet since men can't seem to keep it in their pants. Banning Viagra would be another step in the right direction.
