After watching explain how you can support abortion

[Flash]

15.8 million children lived in food-insecure households in 2012

Child Hunger Poverty Fact Sheeting Feeding America

If their parents wouldn't vote for Liberals that destroy the country then there would be more jobs. The best way to stay out of poverty is to not elect Progressives.

If a child is killed because of the mother doesn't want to be bothered with him or her then it will never get the chance to live and maybe change things for the better.

 

[Flash]

They might starve so we kill them instead.
There are to many so we kill them instead
They might be unloved so we kill them instead
If a women gets pregnant she might die so we kill them instead
Its not human so we surly can kill them
They can't live on its own so we make damn sure it cant ever survive on their own.
What the hell is wrong with these people?

Progressives have always been keen on the idea of eugenics. it goes back to Woodrow Wilson. You see it manifested today in Obamacare (with government controlled and restricted healthcare) and abortion. The Nazis and American Liberals have a lot more in common than the Liberals will admit.

 

[Czernobog]

So you agree that abortion isn't rare. That's a starting point.

Doesn't matter how many there are.

Its none of your business.

You RWs want more and more laws, bigger and bigger government, an end to the middle class and you're not going to get it without a fight.

MYOB

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

I've asked on this thread before.....When do you think life begins? Also, are there any situations where you don't think the government should be able to override a woman's choice of what she does with her own body?

Moment of fertilization.

I have a huge problem with a government that makes legal the killing of unborn human beings. The government is suppose to protect its population. They failed when they legalized abortion.

So you think a couple of cells that have no chance of independent survival constitute a separate human life? On what do you base that? Religion, medical evidence, or something your cat told you?

well, you apparently do. What you are describing has no chance of independent survival. That is the very definition of viability. Once a fetus is viable, then it is a person. Until then it is just a fetus. Thank you for playing.

 

[Flash]

well, you apparently do. What you are describing has no chance of independent survival. That is the very definition of viability. Once a fetus is viable, then it is a person. Until then it is just a fetus. Thank you for playing.

A human needs help from other people to be "viable" from conception until probably ten or twelve years old.
"Non viability" is a very poor justification for killing a child.

You obliviously made it beyond the young "non viability" stage or else you wouldn't be posing today but maybe one of these days when you get older you will become non viable and then maybe somebody will want to terminate you for the sake of convenience.

Thank you for spouting the typical ignorant Libtard talking points by trying to dehumanize the victims of the infanticide.

 

[BULLDOG]

Doesn't matter how many there are.

Its none of your business.

You RWs want more and more laws, bigger and bigger government, an end to the middle class and you're not going to get it without a fight.

MYOB

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

I've asked on this thread before.....When do you think life begins? Also, are there any situations where you don't think the government should be able to override a woman's choice of what she does with her own body?

Moment of fertilization.

I have a huge problem with a government that makes legal the killing of unborn human beings. The government is suppose to protect its population. They failed when they legalized abortion.

So you think a couple of cells that have no chance of independent survival constitute a separate human life? On what do you base that? Religion, medical evidence, or something your cat told you?

well, you apparently do. What you are describing has no chance of independent survival. That is the very definition of viability. Once a fetus is viable, then it is a person. Until then it is just a fetus. Thank you for playing.

I think you might have responded to the wrong post. No problem though. I've done the same thing.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Wrong. It is human...

Oh! It is genetically human; that doesn't make it a human being (refer back to the definition of human being in my earlier post). Cancer cells are also genetically human. Would you conflate them to persons, as well? Words have meaning, and those meanings matter.

Your definition means squat. It is human as it cannot be anything but human. It is a being, as it exists. Your cancer comparison is retarded at best. You don't even know what cancer is, do you? Derp.

It's a human being in the very earliest stages of development. Period. You tap dance around all over the place so you can say 'no, no, abortion doesn't kill a human being'. Bullshit, go pedal it elsewhere.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So you agree that abortion isn't rare. That's a starting point.

Doesn't matter how many there are.

Its none of your business.

You RWs want more and more laws, bigger and bigger government, an end to the middle class and you're not going to get it without a fight.

MYOB

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

I've asked on this thread before.....When do you think life begins? Also, are there any situations where you don't think the government should be able to override a woman's choice of what she does with her own body?

Moment of fertilization.

I have a huge problem with a government that makes legal the killing of unborn human beings. The government is suppose to protect its population. They failed when they legalized abortion.

So you think a couple of cells that have no chance of independent survival constitute a separate human life? On what do you base that? Religion, medical evidence, or something your cat told you?

Because humans have a starting point and fertilization is that starting point. That's when, and how, a new human being is made. How do you not know this?

 

[Czernobog]

well, you apparently do. What you are describing has no chance of independent survival. That is the very definition of viability. Once a fetus is viable, then it is a person. Until then it is just a fetus. Thank you for playing.

A human needs help from other people to be "viable" from conception until probably ten or twelve years old.
"Non viability" is a very poor justification for killing a child.

No it doesn't. Your retarded statement only proves that you don't know the difference between viability, and self-sufficiency. Go. Learn things. Come back when you have.

 

[Czernobog]

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

I've asked on this thread before.....When do you think life begins? Also, are there any situations where you don't think the government should be able to override a woman's choice of what she does with her own body?

Moment of fertilization.

I have a huge problem with a government that makes legal the killing of unborn human beings. The government is suppose to protect its population. They failed when they legalized abortion.

So you think a couple of cells that have no chance of independent survival constitute a separate human life? On what do you base that? Religion, medical evidence, or something your cat told you?

well, you apparently do. What you are describing has no chance of independent survival. That is the very definition of viability. Once a fetus is viable, then it is a person. Until then it is just a fetus. Thank you for playing.

I think you might have responded to the wrong post. No problem though. I've done the same thing.

You're right. I did. I thought you were talking about cancer cells, and being sarcastic. Sorry. My bad. to be honest, I think I'm probably just about done with this discussion, just as I am done with this stupid debate, period. In 8 years of having this debate, I have yet to hear one single original argument against choice.

Every argument made ultimately boils down to nothing more than a variation of the exact same argument: But...but...THEY'RE CHILDREN!!!!!!! After 8 years of exposing that stupid argument for the emotional claptrap that it is, I am really tired of having the same argument with retards who are incapable of understand simple English definitions. Debate is really only interesting whenever there are new ideas to challenge your positions. This stupid debate, filled with the same, tired, emotional ranting has become boring.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Doesn't matter how many there are.

Its none of your business.

You RWs want more and more laws, bigger and bigger government, an end to the middle class and you're not going to get it without a fight.

MYOB

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

I've asked on this thread before.....When do you think life begins? Also, are there any situations where you don't think the government should be able to override a woman's choice of what she does with her own body?

Moment of fertilization.

I have a huge problem with a government that makes legal the killing of unborn human beings. The government is suppose to protect its population. They failed when they legalized abortion.

So you think a couple of cells that have no chance of independent survival constitute a separate human life? On what do you base that? Religion, medical evidence, or something your cat told you?

well, you apparently do. What you are describing has no chance of independent survival. That is the very definition of viability. Once a fetus is viable, then it is a person. Until then it is just a fetus. Thank you for playing.

A fetus is perfectly viable in the womb and (usually) continues on its developmental path until it can survive outside the womb. Unless you abort it, which results in the death of the unborn human being. Either way, viability doesn't make a fetus a human being; it already is a human being.

 

[Flash]

[

No it doesn't. Your retarded statement only proves that you don't know the difference between viability, and self-sufficiency. Go. Learn things. Come back when you have.

Your little pathetic distinction in semantics doesn't mean jackshit to a dead kid, does it?

From the time of conception a child (until what you call "viability") will live unless it dies of a disease , accident or somebody kills them for the sake of convenience.

It is really disgusting to see the crap you Libtards come up with to justify the infanticide. Too bad you are not living in 1942 Germany. Your skills at at semantics would have been of great use to the Third Reich in explaining the Holocaust.

By the way, have you ever taken a course in biology? It doesn't seem like you ever have. You are very ignorant on the subject. Almost as ignorant as you are on the simple concept of morality as it applies to the protection of children that can't protect themselves.

 

[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.

Wrong. It is human...

Oh! It is genetically human; that doesn't make it a human being (refer back to the definition of human being in my earlier post). Cancer cells are also genetically human. Would you conflate them to persons, as well? Words have meaning, and those meanings matter.

Your definition means squat. It is human as it cannot be anything but human. It is a being, as it exists. Your cancer comparison is retarded at best. You don't even know what cancer is, do you? Derp.

Wrong. Simply because a thing exists does not mak e it a "being". it only make it a thing. and, again, a cancer cluster is human. Your point?

It's a human being in the very earliest stages of development. Period. You tap dance around all over the place so you can say 'no, no, abortion doesn't kill a human being'. Bullshit, go pedal it elsewhere.

No, it isn't. It is a mass of cells. You screaming "it's a person! It's a person!!!" like we're in the middle of Soylent Green isn't going to change that fact. Thank you for playing.

 

[Czernobog]

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

I've asked on this thread before.....When do you think life begins? Also, are there any situations where you don't think the government should be able to override a woman's choice of what she does with her own body?

Moment of fertilization.

I have a huge problem with a government that makes legal the killing of unborn human beings. The government is suppose to protect its population. They failed when they legalized abortion.

So you think a couple of cells that have no chance of independent survival constitute a separate human life? On what do you base that? Religion, medical evidence, or something your cat told you?

well, you apparently do. What you are describing has no chance of independent survival. That is the very definition of viability. Once a fetus is viable, then it is a person. Until then it is just a fetus. Thank you for playing.

A fetus is perfectly viable in the womb and (usually) continues on its developmental path until it can survive outside the womb. Unless you abort it, which results in the death of the unborn human being. Either way, viability doesn't make a fetus a human being; it already is a human being.

You're right. I was guilty of my own imprecision. It is just a fetus until it is capable of independent viability. Thank you for catching my error.

 

[Czernobog]

[

No it doesn't. Your retarded statement only proves that you don't know the difference between viability, and self-sufficiency. Go. Learn things. Come back when you have.

Your little pathetic distinction in semantics doesn't mean jackshit to a dead kid, does it?

From the time of conception a child (until what you call "viability") will live unless it dies of a disease , accident or somebody kills them for the sake of convenience.

It is really disgusting to see the crap you Libtards come up with to justify the infanticide. Too bad you are not living in 1942 Germany. Your skills at at semantics would have been of great use to the Third Reich in explaining the Holocaust.

By the way, have you ever taken a course in biology? It doesn't seem like you ever have. You are very ignorant on the subject. Almost as ignorant as you are on the simple concept of morality as it applies to the protection of children that can't protect themselves.

Blah, blah, blah. As I said to bulldog, this tired debate bores me. in nearly a decade, you pathetic moralists have used the Exact. Same. Retarded argument no matter how many times it is exposed for the emotional garbage that it is, obliterated, and demolished.

Guess what? Abortion is legal. You're not gonna make it illegal. Get over yourselves. Have a good night. I'm out.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Wrong. Simply because a thing exists does not mak e it a "being". it only make it a thing. and, again, a cancer cluster is human. Your point?

Good God you're stupid.

It is human. End of discussion.

It is a being.

noun: being - the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).

If it didn't exist, if it wasn't 'being', it wouldn't need to be aborted by those who chose to do so, would it?

It's a human being in the very earliest stages of development. Period. You tap dance around all over the place so you can say 'no, no, abortion doesn't kill a human being'. Bullshit, go pedal it elsewhere.

No, it isn't. It is a mass of cells. You screaming "it's a person! It's a person!!!" like we're in the middle of Soylent Green isn't going to change that fact. Thank you for playing.

It's a human being in the very earliest stages of development. That's how it works, sorry if that screws your warped worldview. Cancer is a mass of cells; an embryo, fetus is a human being at various stages of development. Human. Being. How do you not know how humans are made?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I've asked on this thread before.....When do you think life begins? Also, are there any situations where you don't think the government should be able to override a woman's choice of what she does with her own body?

Moment of fertilization.

I have a huge problem with a government that makes legal the killing of unborn human beings. The government is suppose to protect its population. They failed when they legalized abortion.

So you think a couple of cells that have no chance of independent survival constitute a separate human life? On what do you base that? Religion, medical evidence, or something your cat told you?

well, you apparently do. What you are describing has no chance of independent survival. That is the very definition of viability. Once a fetus is viable, then it is a person. Until then it is just a fetus. Thank you for playing.

A fetus is perfectly viable in the womb and (usually) continues on its developmental path until it can survive outside the womb. Unless you abort it, which results in the death of the unborn human being. Either way, viability doesn't make a fetus a human being; it already is a human being.

You're right. I was guilty of my own imprecision. It is just a fetus until it is capable of independent viability. Thank you for catching my error.

Viability doesn't make a fetus a human being; it already is a human being. Human being inside the womb, human being outside the womb. Human being from the get go, one of a kind, separate dna from the mother. Yup.

 

[BULLDOG]

Doesn't matter how many there are.

Its none of your business.

You RWs want more and more laws, bigger and bigger government, an end to the middle class and you're not going to get it without a fight.

MYOB

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

I've asked on this thread before.....When do you think life begins? Also, are there any situations where you don't think the government should be able to override a woman's choice of what she does with her own body?

Moment of fertilization.

I have a huge problem with a government that makes legal the killing of unborn human beings. The government is suppose to protect its population. They failed when they legalized abortion.

So you think a couple of cells that have no chance of independent survival constitute a separate human life? On what do you base that? Religion, medical evidence, or something your cat told you?

Because humans have a starting point and fertilization is that starting point. That's when, and how, a new human being is made. How do you not know this?

On what do you base that opinion?

 

[Unkotare]

We've got a serious overpopulation problem...

No, we don't.

Um, yes we do.

We most certainly do not. Quite the contrary, in fact. You need to stop swallowing the false panic someone sold you in the 70s.

 

[Zoom-boing]

On what do you base that opinion?

Are you serious? Man, what are they not teaching in schools?

It isn't an opinion it is a fact. Prior to fertilization there isn't a human being, they don't exist. Once fertilized and cells divide, that's the starting point of a new human being. That's it, right there, that's the starting point. Again, how do you not know this? Those beginning cells, from the start, are a separate individual from the mother, own dna, unique one of a kind. This is how a new human being is made. Always.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh, and one last parting shot, as I leave. 8 weeks is actually the most common point at which an abortion is performed. Since we're all sharing pictures, and videos:

Who can tell me what gender the fetus in that photo is? Hell, who can tell me what species the fetus in that photo is, and how do you come to your conclusion?

No? Have a nice ******* day. We're done.