The Morning After...

rtwngAvngr said:
Sure it is. This is an idiotic little test you seem to have devised out of your posterior.

What is a fetal heart monitor detecting then? You're absurd.

A newly fertilized egg which has yet to implant in the uterus doesn't have any heart tones. Who's being absurd now?
 
Kathianne said:
Nope, historians play it too! My guess, so do scientists and ethicists!

Not the way they're playing it here. It's more along the lines of the magical thinking exibited by children.
 
Bullypulpit said:
A newly fertilized egg which has yet to implant in the uterus doesn't have any heart tones. Who's being absurd now?

Yet it is still alive. I was referring to infants which cannot survive outside the womb yet have a heart beat. Your assertion they're not alive is intellectually dishonest and downright evil.
 
Can anyone agree that without a fertilized egg implanting on/in the womb there is no pregnancy,
and without a pregnancy there can be no abortion? That's the way I see this pill. It's preventative just like the standard birth control pill or condom or foam etc....
 
Mr. P said:
Can anyone agree that without a fertilized egg implanting on/in the womb there is no pregnancy,
and without a pregnancy there can be no abortion? That's the way I see this pill. It's preventative just like the standard birth control pill or condom or foam etc....

If you agree there's no right to abortion in the constitution, we have a deal.
 
Mr. P said:
Can anyone agree that without a fertilized egg implanting on/in the womb there is no pregnancy,
and without a pregnancy there can be no abortion? That's the way I see this pill. It's preventative just like the standard birth control pill or condom or foam etc....

A good rape kit procedure, I'll agree with that. As far as I'm willing to go. RWA is correct, science keeps cutting back the date of 'viability' thus, 'humanity.' Until implanted, I don't know.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
If you agree there's no right to abortion in the constitution, we have a deal.
This is not about the constitution, however, Roe was about an un-constitutional Texas law..Now, I will not get in another pissing contest about that.
 
Mr. P said:
This is not about the constitution, however, Roe was about an un-constitutional Texas law..Now, I will not get in another pissing contest about that.

I agree with the pissing contest. Disagree with it being constitutional.
 
Mr. P said:
This is not about the constitution, however, Roe was about an un-constitutional Texas law..Now, I will not get in another pissing contest about that.

Yes, deemed unconstitutional through a misreading of the constitution. Admit it. Your unwillingness to be honest on this issue will keep you in the usmb doghouse in perpetuity.
 
Mr. P said:
Roe was about an un-constitutional Texas law..Now, I will not get in another pissing contest about that..
This is what I was referring to.
 
That's it p. call an argument you can't win a "pissing contest" and pretend you're above it all. Typical libness.
 
Kathianne said:
I agree with the pissing contest. Disagree with it being constitutional.
I have never said it is a constitutional right written in the constitution..Only the TEXAS LAW preventing it and making it criminal was...Roe..I'm not going to argue this..
 
Mr. P said:
I have never said it is a constitutional right written in the constitution..Only the TEXAS LAW preventing it and making it criminal was...Roe..I'm not going to argue this..

Yeah. because you're wrong. The law was deemed unconstitutional BY ASSERTING THERE ARE RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH CLEARLY ARE NOT THERE. Do you know how ridiculous you look?
 
This why libs will continue to lose, p. You run on the fuel of arrogance long after you're proven wrong.
 

Forum List

Back
Top