Liberals On Abortion

[otto105]

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Free your mind.

This is a mighty oak tree in the first days of it's life.

THIS is a human being / a person in the first days of THEIR human life.

That is not a zygote on day 1 or 2.

Neither is the sprouting acorn picture literally of day 1 or 2 of germination.

So?

STILL, They (both) are in their first "days" of life. They are young members of their species.

If you need more litteral pictures to illustrate the first days. . . Why? The point will be exactly the same.

Neither image is representative of the first days as you claim.

Why is that?

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Free your mind.

This is a mighty oak tree in the first days of it's life.

THIS is a human being / a person in the first days of THEIR human life.

That is not a zygote on day 1 or 2.

Neither is the sprouting acorn picture literally of day 1 or 2 of germination.

So?

STILL, They (both) are in their first "days" of life. They are young members of their species.

If you need more litteral pictures to illustrate the first days. . . Why? The point will be exactly the same.

Neither image is representative of the first days as you claim.

Why is that?

I can not be held personally responsible or accountable for your reading comprehension deficits.

 

[otto105]

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Free your mind.

This is a mighty oak tree in the first days of it's life.

THIS is a human being / a person in the first days of THEIR human life.

That is not a zygote on day 1 or 2.

Neither is the sprouting acorn picture literally of day 1 or 2 of germination.

So?

STILL, They (both) are in their first "days" of life. They are young members of their species.

If you need more litteral pictures to illustrate the first days. . . Why? The point will be exactly the same.

Neither image is representative of the first days as you claim.

Why is that?

I can not be held personally responsible or accountable for your reading comprehension deficits.

Can you control your ignorance?

 

[Chuz Life]

Can you control your ignorance?

I sure can.

Would you like to be added to the list?

 

[JoeB131]

I sure can.

Would you like to be added to the list?

Yup, pretty soon you'll have everyone on ignore and then have no one to express your misogyny to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“Baby Lives Matter” Painted Outside Planned Parenthood
by John Wesley Reid

July 18, 2020

Maintenance Mode

Site will be available soon. Thank you for your patience!

djhjmedia.com

 

[JoeB131]

Fetuses aren't babies, and they shouldn't have more rights than the women they are inside.

 

[ThisIsMe]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

So, do you then agree that anyone that is currently serving a prison sentence for murder because their actions may have cause the death of an unborn baby, they should be left out of prison, right?

Since the unborn bab....umm..the unremoved tissue is not a person, no murder could have taken place. Do you agree with this?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Fetuses aren't babies, and they shouldn't have more rights than the women they are inside.

Same question...

So, do you then agree that anyone that is currently serving a prison sentence for murder because their actions may have cause the death of an unborn baby, they should be left out of prison, right?

Since the unborn bab....umm..the unremoved tissue is not a person, no murder could have taken place. Do you agree with this?

 

[Taz]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

So, do you then agree that anyone that is currently serving a prison sentence for murder because their actions may have cause the death of an unborn baby, they should be left out of prison, right?

Since the unborn bab....umm..the unremoved tissue is not a person, no murder could have taken place. Do you agree with this?

They should do a very long sentence. Is it murder? That's a legal question depending on what that jurisdiction has on its books.

 

[Taz]

“Baby Lives Matter” Painted Outside Planned Parenthood
by John Wesley Reid

July 18, 2020

Maintenance Mode

Site will be available soon. Thank you for your patience!

djhjmedia.com

Sure, but if it's outside PP, then they used the wrong words.

 

[JoeB131]

Same question...

So, do you then agree that anyone that is currently serving a prison sentence for murder because their actions may have cause the death of an unborn baby, they should be left out of prison, right?

Nope. Assuming the death of a fetus was the ONLY thing they were in for (usually it involved killing the woman it was inside) then they should be charged with assault on a woman. Period. Done.

Fetuses aren't people.

The problem with these "Fetal Homicide" laws is that the right wing has perverted them to go after women who have had miscarriages, which is exactly what we knew they would do.

Look up the case of one Purvi Patel, a young woman who lost a fetus, and was charged with infanticide on dubious evidence before a higher court overturned her conviction.

 

[JoeB131]

Since the unborn bab....umm..the unremoved tissue is not a person, no murder could have taken place. Do you agree with this?

yes, no murder took place.

You can charge the person with assault if their crime was egregious enough.

 

[whitehall]

The political liberals (so to speak) defended Planned Parenthood when it became evident that they were selling body parts gleaned mostly from late term abortions. In an ironic twist of fate the people who uncovered the ghastly operation were charged with a crime and PP barely skipped a beat. Killing the unborn is a gigantic business with hard core (mostly democrat) political support.

 

[JoeB131]

The political liberals (so to speak) defended Planned Parenthood when it became evident that they were selling body parts gleaned mostly from late term abortions.

Those tissues were donated by the women having the abortions for medical research that has saved lives.... but never mind, you guys have your talking points.

 

[JoeB131]

In an ironic twist of fate the people who uncovered the ghastly operation were charged with a crime and PP barely skipped a beat. Killing the unborn is a gigantic business with hard core (mostly democrat) political support.

Um, yes, it's against the law to commit fraud, libel people and illegally record them.

 

[francoHFW]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

Ripping viable children out of their mothers and selling their body parts to research ghouls is your idea of "free society"? you are one sick fuck, boy.

The not brainwashed will go with the supreme Court settled law of it's not a baby or human until at least three months, besides that only done to save the mother's life. But carry on with the garbage propaganda and fear-mongering... It's a GOP wedge issue to keep you voting for the giveaway to the rich, brainwashed functional moron

 

[ThisIsMe]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

So, do you then agree that anyone that is currently serving a prison sentence for murder because their actions may have cause the death of an unborn baby, they should be left out of prison, right?

Since the unborn bab....umm..the unremoved tissue is not a person, no murder could have taken place. Do you agree with this?

They should do a very long sentence. Is it murder? That's a legal question depending on what that jurisdiction has on its books.

I am not asking what the legal definition is, I'm asking what your opinion is, and what other leftists would think?

You're very clear to make a distinction when it comes to abortion that it is not a person and therefore it is not murder to have an abortion, but when someone asks you a question about someone else taking the life of an unborn baby, the left starts talking about legal definitions and you have to let lawyers make that call.

I've had people give me this response in the past about this question, and it is hard to ever get a straight answer. If the abortion is not a person, but just a ball of tissue, then if someone causes a woman to lose her pregnancy, then it also cannot be murder because it is still a ball of tissue, right?

I'm just asking your opinion, not legally, do you consider someone, who has caused a woman to lose her pregnancy, to have committed murder?

Also, you said they should do a very long sentence...why may I ask? If what the woman had inside her is not a person, then the worst they could be charged with is destruction of property? That is usually a misdemeanor and generally carries a light sentence, often, just a fine.

 

[JoeB131]

I've had people give me this response in the past about this question, and it is hard to ever get a straight answer. If the abortion is not a person, but just a ball of tissue, then if someone causes a woman to lose her pregnancy, then it also cannot be murder because it is still a ball of tissue, right?

yes, we have stupid laws on the books, that no one has successfully challenged yet, usually because the people who can challenge them have already committed a lot of other crimes and aren't very sympathetic.

I'm just asking your opinion, not legally, do you consider someone, who has caused a woman to lose her pregnancy, to have committed murder?

No. Fetuses aren't people.

Also, you said they should do a very long sentence...why may I ask? If what the woman had inside her is not a person, then the worst they could be charged with is destruction of property? That is usually a misdemeanor and generally carries a light sentence, often, just a fine.

Actually, you can charge them with aggravated assault on the person the fetus was inside, which can carry a very hefty criminal penalty.

The problem, as I have said is that once you start charging people for the accidental miscarriage caused during an assault, the next step is charging people with miscarriages from other causes, like they tried to do to Purvi Patel.

Purvi Patel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[alang1216]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

So, do you then agree that anyone that is currently serving a prison sentence for murder because their actions may have cause the death of an unborn baby, they should be left out of prison, right?

Since the unborn bab....umm..the unremoved tissue is not a person, no murder could have taken place. Do you agree with this?

They should do a very long sentence. Is it murder? That's a legal question depending on what that jurisdiction has on its books.

I am not asking what the legal definition is, I'm asking what your opinion is, and what other leftists would think?

You're very clear to make a distinction when it comes to abortion that it is not a person and therefore it is not murder to have an abortion, but when someone asks you a question about someone else taking the life of an unborn baby, the left starts talking about legal definitions and you have to let lawyers make that call.

I've had people give me this response in the past about this question, and it is hard to ever get a straight answer. If the abortion is not a person, but just a ball of tissue, then if someone causes a woman to lose her pregnancy, then it also cannot be murder because it is still a ball of tissue, right?

I'm just asking your opinion, not legally, do you consider someone, who has caused a woman to lose her pregnancy, to have committed murder?

Also, you said they should do a very long sentence...why may I ask? If what the woman had inside her is not a person, then the worst they could be charged with is destruction of property? That is usually a misdemeanor and generally carries a light sentence, often, just a fine.

I'm pro-choice and I have no problem with making the killing of a fetus without the consent of the mother, a crime. I don't care what the crime is called.