If abortions are murder

[Amazed]

Paul Ryan claims he supports letting states decide the abortion issue, which means he is not opposed to making 'killing babies' legal at the state level.

Is he lying?

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

It means he isn't for the Feds forcing anything upon anyone....it means he wants the "people" to make the decision.....do try and follow.

 

[zeke]

And encouraging people to sign DNR's are tantamount to murder.

Come to think of it, there are no life ending procedures that are not murder.

Right Rotty?

And if a womans body aborts on its own. MAYBE the charge could be reduced to involuntary manslaughter.

Would that be good enough Rotty?

Man we sure are going to need to expand that courtrooms of this country. And think of the money attorneys will make.

Are you an attorney Rotty?

 

[zeke]

Paul Ryan claims he supports letting states decide the abortion issue, which means he is not opposed to making 'killing babies' legal at the state level.

Is he lying?

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

It means he isn't for the Feds forcing anything upon anyone....it means he wants the "people" to make the decision.....do try and follow.

And if the "people" decide to abort, then that is OK? As long as the Federal Guvmint has no input?

I thought Ryan was a moral person? No? Isn't murder in WI that same as murder in CA?

 

[WillowTree]

IF ABORTIONS ARE MURDER…

Than the method and reason should not matter. Death penalty is murder. Abortions are murder. Putting a gun to someone’s head is murder. Collateral Damage is murder. Does it make a difference who that victim is? Rape, incest that produce a pregnancy and if that pregnancy is terminated it is not murder? Or life in a test tube terminated. What makes that life different from a life produced by a husband and wife, etc?

You fucktards sound as if rape and incest are the ONLY reasons you would murder your children? Blow that out your ass, you do it for convenience. And the difference is asswipe. the fetus dosen't get a trial.

 

[JoeB131]

IF ABORTIONS ARE MURDER…

Than the method and reason should not matter. Death penalty is murder. Abortions are murder. Putting a gun to someone’s head is murder. Collateral Damage is murder. Does it make a difference who that victim is? Rape, incest that produce a pregnancy and if that pregnancy is terminated it is not murder? Or life in a test tube terminated. What makes that life different from a life produced by a husband and wife, etc?

Good question.

I never see the "Pro-Life" crowd ever say how they are going to enforce a ban on abortion.

Are they going to put the women in jail?

I never see the Dumbocrats ever say how they are going to enforce a ban on murder. I guess we should just legalize it then, uh?
...?

Poodle, you know, you really are some kind of special retard, aren't you?

We know exactly how we enforce a ban on murder. We have an investigation, we put the murderer in front of a jury of his peers, and then we throw him in jail. It isn't a perfect system. We sometimes send poor people to prison for crimes they didn't commit, and occassionally a rich asshole or a celebrity like O.J. will get off because they have clever lawyers with no ethics, but usually, the system works.

This would never work with abortion. First, you'd really have no evidence, if the "victim" is only known to exist to the person trying to get rid of it and is the size of a kidney bean (easily disposible.) But even if you did, no jury would convict such a woman.

Do you know how many women were charged with having abortions prior to Roe v. Wade? Exactly TWO. One in 1911, one in 1922. Doctors who provided them were rarely charged unless they screwed up and maimed someone. And that was before it was legal for 40 years. Try to get people to go along with such silly laws now.

You want to compare it to "murder", but the fact is, it's more like prostitution. Yeah, it's against the law, but mostly people ignore it unless its in their face. Another good comparison was prohibition. People just kept right on drinking until everyone realized it was a stupid idea.

Really, you just aren't very smart, are you?

 

[JoeB131]

Technically, she's a woman practicing birth control, because fetuses aren't people...

"Fetuses aren't people" - what are they then Joe, vegetables?

Fetuses.

As in, something that can't live outside a uterus.

Didn't they teach you about the birds and the bees in Home Skule, Cleetus?

 

[JoeB131]

But let's take your silly notion of giving civil rights to sperm to it's logical conclusion.

Once again we see the dumbest communist in world history desperate to make a point, and instead humiliating himself and his party with a nonsensical "argument".

A person is created when a sperm merges with an egg. Sperm by itself is not a person. An egg by itself is not a person. A sperm and an egg together are a person (you can tell JoeB. is old like LGS says because this guy clearly never had sex education ).

Hey Joe, when they do an ultra sound on a fetus, it has a heartbeat. What would you call that? A sperm does not have a heartbeat. An egg does not have a heartbeat. But both combined do. If it has a heartbeat, and in your dumb little mind it is "not a person" as you claim, then what the hell is it? A plasma tv? A power tool? Maybe you think the fetus is a Ford F150?

I'm shocked you haven't found a new forum, because I would think you would just get tired of being humiliated in your weak and nonsensical arguments by me...

Poodle, I only entertain you for laughs. I usually make you look like a fool, no matter how many times you declare victory, little boy. In fact, I almost feel sad for you.

Fact is, Fetuses aren't people. They're fetuses. The fact that they have a "heartbeat" doesn't make them a person. They can't live outside the womb for more than a few seconds.

And if the owner of that womb wants them out, they are going out.

And until you right wingers start giving a shit about children, I'll take your protestations about fetuses less than seriously.

 

[sakinago]

But let's take your silly notion of giving civil rights to sperm to it's logical conclusion.

Once again we see the dumbest communist in world history desperate to make a point, and instead humiliating himself and his party with a nonsensical "argument".

A person is created when a sperm merges with an egg. Sperm by itself is not a person. An egg by itself is not a person. A sperm and an egg together are a person (you can tell JoeB. is old like LGS says because this guy clearly never had sex education ).

Hey Joe, when they do an ultra sound on a fetus, it has a heartbeat. What would you call that? A sperm does not have a heartbeat. An egg does not have a heartbeat. But both combined do. If it has a heartbeat, and in your dumb little mind it is "not a person" as you claim, then what the hell is it? A plasma tv? A power tool? Maybe you think the fetus is a Ford F150?

I'm shocked you haven't found a new forum, because I would think you would just get tired of being humiliated in your weak and nonsensical arguments by me...

Poodle, I only entertain you for laughs. I usually make you look like a fool, no matter how many times you declare victory, little boy. In fact, I almost feel sad for you.

Fact is, Fetuses aren't people. They're fetuses. The fact that they have a "heartbeat" doesn't make them a person. They can't live outside the womb for more than a few seconds.

And if the owner of that womb wants them out, they are going out.

And until you right wingers start giving a shit about children, I'll take your protestations about fetuses less than seriously.

Ah, I am so socially and intelligently superior to you (this is me mocking you btw). Just cause you act like it does not make it true. My case and point that you want to make a case for personhood, and that it begins at birth, but you ignore the fact that there is no black and white definition for personhood. That is not a very socially or intelligently superior argument to make. Nor is the generalization that right wingers do not care about their kids, its a generalization...which is bad rhetoric...which is not socially or intelligently superior.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, I am so socially and intelligently superior to you (this is me mocking you btw). Just cause you act like it does not make it true. My case and point that you want to make a case for personhood, and that it begins at birth, but you ignore the fact that there is no black and white definition for personhood. That is not a very socially or intelligently superior argument to make. Nor is the generalization that right wingers do not care about their kids, its a generalization...which is bad rhetoric...which is not socially or intelligently superior.

1) I wasn't talking to you ,I was talking to Poodle.

2) I really, really don't give a flying **** when "personhood" begins. Practical matter- woman wants that stuff our of her body, it's going out. Period. She will find a way to do it. Always.

3) Right wingers don't care about poor people's kids, which is why I find it laughable that they want to force poor people to have more kids.

4) The wealthy and teh GOP have been playing you for a dupe and a rube for 40 years on this issue. Roe v. Wade was passed by republican justices, and Republican Justices have defended it for 40 years. If you are still buying that shit, you are just kind of stupid.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals show how fucked up they are in their head when they complain a woman could die in a back alley abortion clinic if Roe vs Wade is overturned. Uh, she is going there to kill another human....so who cares if she dies in the act of killing another human.

I guess you morons feel sorry for a terrorist that blows himself up making a bomb to kill other humans.....

 

[JoeB131]

Liberals show how fucked up they are in their head when they complain a woman could die in a back alley abortion clinic if Roe vs Wade is overturned. Uh, she is going there to kill another human....so who cares if she dies in the act of killing another human.

Why would we care about a person with a name and a family and relationships and a job more than we'd care about a zygote the size of a kidney bean?

I mean, you'd really have to ask us that?

Most sane people would care... I know that is not a set that includes you, but that's what it is.

 

[GoneBezerk]

She is a murderer when she kills a fetus, you piece of shit.

Hell, a fetus is more advanced than you.

Scum like you support killing unborn humans because:

You support covering up rape, covering up incest, covering adultery, covering up sex outside marriage, etc, etc, etc.

Scum like you don't want some unplanned kid to ruin your plans for college, work, etc....so just kill it off is your reaction. You would kill anyone to get ahead in life....

Liberals show how fucked up they are in their head when they complain a woman could die in a back alley abortion clinic if Roe vs Wade is overturned. Uh, she is going there to kill another human....so who cares if she dies in the act of killing another human.

Why would we care about a person with a name and a family and relationships and a job more than we'd care about a zygote the size of a kidney bean?

I mean, you'd really have to ask us that?

Most sane people would care... I know that is not a set that includes you, but that's what it is.

 

[sakinago]

Ah, I am so socially and intelligently superior to you (this is me mocking you btw). Just cause you act like it does not make it true. My case and point that you want to make a case for personhood, and that it begins at birth, but you ignore the fact that there is no black and white definition for personhood. That is not a very socially or intelligently superior argument to make. Nor is the generalization that right wingers do not care about their kids, its a generalization...which is bad rhetoric...which is not socially or intelligently superior.

1) I wasn't talking to you ,I was talking to Poodle.

2) I really, really don't give a flying **** when "personhood" begins. Practical matter- woman wants that stuff our of her body, it's going out. Period. She will find a way to do it. Always.

3) Right wingers don't care about poor people's kids, which is why I find it laughable that they want to force poor people to have more kids.

4) The wealthy and teh GOP have been playing you for a dupe and a rube for 40 years on this issue. Roe v. Wade was passed by republican justices, and Republican Justices have defended it for 40 years. If you are still buying that shit, you are just kind of stupid.

Well I am talking to you now. And you really dont give a flying **** about person, thats weird, cause in your previous post you were talking about it as if its scientific fact. And again you make another generalization that if abortion were illegal, all women that want one will always do it by any means necessary... do you really believe that? This is where your new argument seems to be based on, the fact that they're gonna do it anyway so have it. Hmm, theres a question of validity in that. And then you want to bring up a case that had nothing to do with the ethics of abortion, and make another generalization that the right wing doesn't care about poor peoples babies. If your going to act so intelligently superior, back it up with arguments that can actually function...like someone intelligently superior would.

 

[kaz]

IF ABORTIONS ARE MURDER…

Than the method and reason should not matter. Death penalty is murder. Abortions are murder

OK, I'm anti death penalty and pro-choice, but I really wish my allies in this would stop trying to help.

1) Protecting the innocent = punishing the guilty? Seriously? That's your argument?

2) Constitutionally the right to life, liberty and property cannot be taken ... without due process. The criminal had due process, the fetus didn't.

The right argument is it's an infringement on a woman's body. When the left try to show how clever you are, you just know it's not going to end well...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good question.

I never see the "Pro-Life" crowd ever say how they are going to enforce a ban on abortion.

Are they going to put the women in jail?

I never see the Dumbocrats ever say how they are going to enforce a ban on murder. I guess we should just legalize it then, uh?
...?

Poodle, you know, you really are some kind of special retard, aren't you?

We know exactly how we enforce a ban on murder. We have an investigation, we put the murderer in front of a jury of his peers, and then we throw him in jail. It isn't a perfect system. We sometimes send poor people to prison for crimes they didn't commit, and occassionally a rich asshole or a celebrity like O.J. will get off because they have clever lawyers with no ethics, but usually, the system works.

This would never work with abortion. First, you'd really have no evidence, if the "victim" is only known to exist to the person trying to get rid of it and is the size of a kidney bean (easily disposible.) But even if you did, no jury would convict such a woman.

Do you know how many women were charged with having abortions prior to Roe v. Wade? Exactly TWO. One in 1911, one in 1922. Doctors who provided them were rarely charged unless they screwed up and maimed someone. And that was before it was legal for 40 years. Try to get people to go along with such silly laws now.

You want to compare it to "murder", but the fact is, it's more like prostitution. Yeah, it's against the law, but mostly people ignore it unless its in their face. Another good comparison was prohibition. People just kept right on drinking until everyone realized it was a stupid idea.

Really, you just aren't very smart, are you?

Punishing someone after the fact is not a ban on murder.

 

[JoeB131]

Well I am talking to you now. And you really dont give a flying **** about person, thats weird, cause in your previous post you were talking about it as if its scientific fact. And again you make another generalization that if abortion were illegal, all women that want one will always do it by any means necessary... do you really believe that? This is where your new argument seems to be based on, the fact that they're gonna do it anyway so have it. Hmm, theres a question of validity in that. And then you want to bring up a case that had nothing to do with the ethics of abortion, and make another generalization that the right wing doesn't care about poor peoples babies. If your going to act so intelligently superior, back it up with arguments that can actually function...like someone intelligently superior would.

1) Practical fact- if it can't live outside the person it's in, it ain't a person.

2) More practical fact, you might be able to bully a few women into not getting abortions. Frankly, a terrible idea. Our prisons are full of guys who would have been better off as abortions.

3) The Right Wing is so full of shit on this issue, it isn't funny, and all you rubes fall for it.

4) My arguments crush your stupid sophistry... learn to deal.

 

[JoeB131]

I never see the Dumbocrats ever say how they are going to enforce a ban on murder. I guess we should just legalize it then, uh?
...?

Poodle, you know, you really are some kind of special retard, aren't you?

We know exactly how we enforce a ban on murder. We have an investigation, we put the murderer in front of a jury of his peers, and then we throw him in jail. It isn't a perfect system. We sometimes send poor people to prison for crimes they didn't commit, and occassionally a rich asshole or a celebrity like O.J. will get off because they have clever lawyers with no ethics, but usually, the system works.

This would never work with abortion. First, you'd really have no evidence, if the "victim" is only known to exist to the person trying to get rid of it and is the size of a kidney bean (easily disposible.) But even if you did, no jury would convict such a woman.

Do you know how many women were charged with having abortions prior to Roe v. Wade? Exactly TWO. One in 1911, one in 1922. Doctors who provided them were rarely charged unless they screwed up and maimed someone. And that was before it was legal for 40 years. Try to get people to go along with such silly laws now.

You want to compare it to "murder", but the fact is, it's more like prostitution. Yeah, it's against the law, but mostly people ignore it unless its in their face. Another good comparison was prohibition. People just kept right on drinking until everyone realized it was a stupid idea.

Really, you just aren't very smart, are you?

Punishing someone after the fact is not a ban on murder.

Nope, it isn't.

But it is a deterent.

Trust, me, there are a lot of people who are ONLY alive right now because murder is against the law.

 

[sakinago]

Well I am talking to you now. And you really dont give a flying **** about person, thats weird, cause in your previous post you were talking about it as if its scientific fact. And again you make another generalization that if abortion were illegal, all women that want one will always do it by any means necessary... do you really believe that? This is where your new argument seems to be based on, the fact that they're gonna do it anyway so have it. Hmm, theres a question of validity in that. And then you want to bring up a case that had nothing to do with the ethics of abortion, and make another generalization that the right wing doesn't care about poor peoples babies. If your going to act so intelligently superior, back it up with arguments that can actually function...like someone intelligently superior would.

1) Practical fact- if it can't live outside the person it's in, it ain't a person.

2) More practical fact, you might be able to bully a few women into not getting abortions. Frankly, a terrible idea. Our prisons are full of guys who would have been better off as abortions.

3) The Right Wing is so full of shit on this issue, it isn't funny, and all you rubes fall for it.

4) My arguments crush your stupid sophistry... learn to deal.

Wow, can you make at least 1 functional argument here, thats all I am asking for, it shouldn't be this hard to do. Your first point you are now talking about viability, not person? Your all over the place. But if you want to make a point on viability then you should probably start by defining when viability of the infant is... use of common medical knowledge would be useful here. As for your second point, do you really believe that 51% or more of the prisoners mothers wanted to abort their children... but for some odd reason did not? Point 3, a pretty big generalization again...with nothing to back it up. Point 4, thats weird... I dont feel crushed, shocking since you are making so many coherent, sound points.

 

[thanatos144]

 

[Noomi]

A fetus is a life, but while it resides in the woman, she comes first.