After watching explain how you can support abortion

[Zoom-boing]

Better yet:

1) Don't have promiscuous sex.
2) Don't get pregnant.
3) Put the baby up for adoption.
4) Let a family member care for the baby.
5) Keep the baby and care for it yourself.
6) Get an operation so you can't get pregnant allowing yourself to feed your sex addiction.

Libtards absolutely hate the concept of personal responsibility. The would rather kill the child than take responsibility for their actions.

You misunderstand their illogic .. they believe that killing an unborn human being is being responsible.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why not? Keep the child and raise them or give them up for adoption, kid lives, parents don't have to be tormented that they killed their unborn offspring.

I'm sure your simplistic view is very convincing to the weak minded, but only a moron wouldn't recognize that the situation is much more complex than that. You're not a moron, so why aren't you making intelligent arguments?
'

Life is complexed but the average person doesn't kill an innocent unborn child.

The fact that you look at the decision to end a pregnancy as killing a child shows your inability to do anything but quote crazy right wing rhetoric.
Isn't it about time you went crying to the teacher again? It's been a good hour.

Abortion DOES kill an unborn human being. That's what it does, no question. It ends their life, terminates their life, kills them.

What is a D&C, and why did their numbers immediately drop to almost nothing when abortion was legalized?

Ignoring what I said, you're doing it right.

 

[Zoom-boing]

ZOOM-BOING SAID:

“If a woman is considering aborting her offspring, she should have full accessto what the procedure entails. Pictures, videos, procedure, etc. so she knows exactly what it is that she is doing.”

The state has no authority to compel 'full access' as a condition of a woman exercising her protected liberty that is the right to privacy, to do so would manifest as an undue burden and would in fact be un-Constitutional.

Look, another leftist not wanting a woman to be fully informed before making a life-or-death decision. I thought you lefties were in favor of education? Yeah, right.

Please link to where I said the state should compel.

Derrrrp.

 

[Carla_Danger]

, I'm just more concerned about who's going to feed those babies once they're here.

No you're not.

Child killer.

Dishonest, piece of shit loser.

I take it you support increasing tax payer funding for SNAP?

 

[Flash]

Killing unborn human beings is everyone's business. That you think otherwise is very sad.

Libtards want you to take responsibility for the welfare of everybody and their little brown dog but for some odd hypocritical reason they don't think a child's life is worth protecting.

They normally hate the concept of freedom except when it comes to the freedom of killing your child so they really have no credibility on the subject of freedom..

Of course these are the same people that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 so you know they don't exactly have a solid moral or intellectual foundation so it is not surprising they are for the killing of children

 

[August West]

Killing unborn human beings is everyone's business. That you think otherwise is very sad.

Libtards want you to take responsibility for the welfare of everybody and their little brown dog but for some odd hypocritical reason they don't think a child's life is worth protecting.

They normally hate the concept of freedom except when it comes to the freedom of killing your child so they really have no credibility on the subject of freedom..

Of course these are the same people that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 so you know they don't exactly have a solid moral or intellectual foundation so it is not surprising they are for the killing of children

You know where there are children being killed but you sit on your ass and type away on your keyboard? The shame is on you. I would be calling the police or taking action on my own.

 

[Flash]

Not to mention the fact that there's big money to be made. Abortionists live a lucrative lifestyle at the expense of their victims.

Also there is the fact that the abortion lobby is a strong supporter of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party is made up of a coalition of all the despicable greedy and confused factions in America and the Feminazis and their obsession with abortion on demand is one of them.

I honestly don't think that the typical Liberal is so morally and intellectually deficient as to actually support the infanticide but they have been so conditioned by the Left that they just go along with it. I never have run one that actually can justify abortion. They just spout the Libtard talking points without really knowing what they are saying.

 

[Flash]

You know where there are children being killed but you sit on your ass and type away on your keyboard? The shame is on you. I would be calling the police or taking action on my own.

My wife and I spent several years in a mission to council women that were to consider having an abortion. We help to save some children. We are doing other things now like providing food to those that are hungry.

We can't do it all.

 

[Czernobog]

Anyone brave enough to stand up and say they support abortion?

Couple of things. Pro-choice advocates do not "support abortions". Neither do we condemn them. As we do not believe that it is our place to pronounce moral judgements on others for the choices they make.

That being said, yup. I am still of the opinion that I have always been. Until about the 21st week a fetus is just that - a fetus - and is not capable of independent survival; it is not a viable life. therefore a fetus is not, by definition a person. Thus a fetus, by definition is not guaranteed any "rights" in this country, by our Constitution. For this reason, the only person whose right of self-determination that I am concerned with is that of the pregnant woman.

Does this clarify my position on this issue for you bigrebnc? Have I made myself clear enough that there is no number of graphic videos, or photographs that you can produce that will convince me to have an emotional reaction contrary to medical, and scientific fact?

I don't think you can take that middle ground.

Either you support the murder of children for the sake of convenience or you don't.

The problem is your imprecise use of the English language.

Let's come to an understanding that words have meanings, and those meanings matter, shall we? Then we can understand why misusing words leads to illogical, irrational emotional appeals that are useless, and meaningless. When we can agree on that fact, then reality becomes simple:

Child: a young human being below the age of puberty.

Human Being: a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species

Person: An individual

And finally, Individual: existing as a distinct, viable entity

You see, a fetus is not a "distinct, viable entity", and is therefore not capable of being an individual, which precludes it from being a person. It is, in turn, therefore impossible for a fetus to be a human being, which means that, by definition, a fetus Is. Not. A. Child.

See how clear, and simple things become when we accept that words have meanings, and that those meanings actually matter?

The medical fact is that at 20 week old fetus has a brain, eyes, toes and human DNA. No different from you except in a different development stage. Why would anybody with any moral foundation agree to killing a child for the sake of convenience?

Except that no reasonable pro-choice advocate supports the idea of late-term (past 20 weeks) abortions, except under the condition of duress to the pregnant woman. This is the other misconception that you anti-choice folks have: that those of us who are pro-choice all support a woman's choice to have an abortion right up the the day she delivers. We don't.

 

[Czernobog]

WAKE SAID:

“I don't support abortion, not even in cases of incest and rape.”

No one 'supports' abortion in any case – that's not the issue; everyone should support a woman's right to make the choice to have a child or not absent unwarranted interference from the state, that's the issue.

It's the "not" part we have trouble with because the "not" part kills an unborn human being and killing an unborn human being is wrong. Don't you think so?

By definition, there is no such thing as an "unborn human being". by definition an "unborn" human being is an impossibility.

 

[Czernobog]

Libtards have three basic response to why they support abortion.

First is that a mother should have the freedom to kill her children for the sake of convenience. Of course besides this being a very immoral stance it totally denies the freedom of the child to live. A very disgusting postilion.

Second, society is better off withoput the children since the mother the mother wants to kill them. Equally as disgusting.

Third is the Nazi defense by saying that the children are not human so therefore we can kill them and not worry about it. The same defense the Nazi used to dehumanize the Jews when they sent them to extermination camps.

And embryo/fetus is not a child.

It's human life. What is that shown in the video?

Cancer cells are a "human life" - a living organism with human DNA markers. Your definition is still imprecise. It is not an independent, individual human being, and is, therefore, not afforded any "rights".

 

[chikenwing]

We've got a serious overpopulation problem...

No, we don't.

Um, yes we do.

According to the population institute, it took only 14 years, from 1999 to today, for the global population to increase by one billion people... just 14 years.

It takes about 1 acre of land to support the average human with food. That doesn't take into account any land needed for energy production or clothing production, or even *oxygen* production. It doesn't take into account the watershed land needed to provide for clean drinking water. It doesn't take into account the land needed for landfill waste. It doesn't even count the land needed for cemeteries for all those people when they're over. It doesn't take into account any land that people might want to use for recreational purposes. The 1+ acres is just for food per person.

According to the 'agricultural land' wiki, there now exist around 12,071,900,000 acres of pasture, crops, and orchards currently in production. There isn't all that much more arable land outside of that... the rest is deserts and mountains and oceans and rainforests, and they all have crappy soil that won't grow food. With 7,120,313,000 people on earth today, that is 1.69 acres per person. On the whole planet.

Based on those numbers, how many more billions pf people do you think can the earth support? (The earth's population is currently increasing at around 211,000 persons per day, and that number will keep going up with time.)

So you solution is death? got it you and Dr.mengela would have been close.

 

[chikenwing]

WAKE SAID:

“I don't support abortion, not even in cases of incest and rape.”

No one 'supports' abortion in any case – that's not the issue; everyone should support a woman's right to make the choice to have a child or not absent unwarranted interference from the state, that's the issue.

It's the "not" part we have trouble with because the "not" part kills an unborn human being and killing an unborn human being is wrong. Don't you think so?

By definition, there is no such thing as an "unborn human being". by definition an "unborn" human being is an impossibility.

So what were you a ******* gold fish?? that just suddenly became human when?
Do you people even think for a moment what yo0u post?

 

[Flash]

Cancer cells are a "human life" - a living organism with human DNA markers. Your definition is still imprecise. It is not an independent, individual human being, and is, therefore, not afforded any "rights".

This is a great example of the confusion that the Libtards have about the biology of abortion.

Every living thing on earth is either one cell or a collection of cells, including those humans not aborted.

The Libtards like to dehumanize the children to be murdered by claiming they are not human but the inconvenient truth is that by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant and can make arrangements to get the abortion the child has all the traits of any human person.

 

[chikenwing]

Apparently they expect the government to pay for everything for them. Is it that they are too dumb to realize revenue pays for our military, public schools and highways etc.?

The newest republican tax cut proposal would add 440 billion to our national debt. More proof republicans don't give a shit about the issue

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally.

A battle over taxes divides Democrats. More to come - The Washington Post

Libtards have three basic response to why they support abortion.

First is that a mother should have the freedom to kill her children for the sake of convenience. Of course besides this being a very immoral stance it totally denies the freedom of the child to live. A very disgusting postilion.

Second, society is better off withoput the children since the mother the mother wants to kill them. Equally as disgusting.

Third is the Nazi defense by saying that the children are not human so therefore we can kill them and not worry about it. The same defense the Nazi used to dehumanize the Jews when they sent them to extermination camps.

And embryo/fetus is not a child.

It's human life. What is that shown in the video?

Cancer cells are a "human life" - a living organism with human DNA markers. Your definition is still imprecise. It is not an independent, individual human being, and is, therefore, not afforded any "rights".

At the moment of conception,an unique individual with distinct DNA is formed
You need to go back to 7th grade health class

 

[Czernobog]

"AFTER WATCHING EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT ABORTION"

Unsurprisingly, you don't understand.

No one 'supports' abortion – the conflict manifests with regard to how to end the practice, where there are those who seek to 'ban' abortion thus violating the protected right to privacy, expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

You are a lying sack of pig shit.

You kiss your mother with that mouth?

Clayton is right. I do not support abortion either. What I do support is people being free to make their own decisions with people like you butting the **** out of other's lives.

Bull shit most pro abortion people support abortion.

see? Therein lies the problem. You presume that pro-choice = pro-abortion. It doesn't. It might interest you to know that I am actually anti-choice, personally. I, personally, believe that divinity imbues us with a soul at conception, and that abortion is murder.

However, do you know that the key words in that proclamation are? Personally, and believe. You see, those two words indicate that I have no scientific evidence to support my position, and therefore my position is only valid for me. Since I am a big fan of individual liberty, I cannot, and would not, support enacting legislation that would force everyone else to behave in accordance with my personal belief, without scientific support. It is for this reason that I am Pro-Choice; not to be confused with Pro-abortion.

 

[chikenwing]

Cancer cells are a "human life" - a living organism with human DNA markers. Your definition is still imprecise. It is not an independent, individual human being, and is, therefore, not afforded any "rights".

This is a great example of the confusion that the Libtards have about the biology of abortion.

Every living thing on earth is either one cell or a collection of cells, including those humans not aborted.

The Libtards like to dehumanize the children to be murdered by claiming they are not human but the inconvenient truth is that by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant and can make arrangements to get the abortion the child has all the traits of any human person.

Its classic rationalization,it must be labeled bad,so I feel ok about killing it.
Rather chilling !!!

 

[Flash]

By definition, there is no such thing as an "unborn human being". by definition an "unborn" human being is an impossibility.

Yea, right. This not a human being so lets kill the little bastard because the mother don't want to bothered with him.

 

[Czernobog]

WAKE SAID:

“I don't support abortion, not even in cases of incest and rape.”

No one 'supports' abortion in any case – that's not the issue; everyone should support a woman's right to make the choice to have a child or not absent unwarranted interference from the state, that's the issue.

It's the "not" part we have trouble with because the "not" part kills an unborn human being and killing an unborn human being is wrong. Don't you think so?

By definition, there is no such thing as an "unborn human being". by definition an "unborn" human being is an impossibility.

So what were you a ******* gold fish?? that just suddenly became human when?
Do you people even think for a moment what yo0u post?

So, to be clear, you are opposed to aborting this fetus?

 

[Czernobog]

Cancer cells are a "human life" - a living organism with human DNA markers. Your definition is still imprecise. It is not an independent, individual human being, and is, therefore, not afforded any "rights".

This is a great example of the confusion that the Libtards have about the biology of abortion.

Every living thing on earth is either one cell or a collection of cells, including those humans not aborted.

The Libtards like to dehumanize the children to be murdered by claiming they are not human but the inconvenient truth is that by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant and can make arrangements to get the abortion the child has all the traits of any human person.

Is it capable of independent viability? No? Then it is not an individual, and not a person. You can try to cloud that reality all you like, it doesn't change the scientific facts.