"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points

[SassyIrishLass]

Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.

Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??

Hard to tell anymore.

I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.

That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....

Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.

Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.

Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.

No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.

You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.

You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.

Princeton good enough for ya? Now shut up loudmouth

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

He ignored the other 10,000 quotes from medical textbooks and scientists, so I'm sure he'll ignore that too. In other words, we could post 100,000 statements from scientists, and he would STILL claim "Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about when is the beginning of life"?" lolololol Ohhh, my word.

He's being flat out dishonest, at this point.

They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards

 

[Carl in Michigan]

What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:

Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973

Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.

Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??

Hard to tell anymore.

I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.

That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....

Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.

Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.

Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.

No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.

You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.

You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.

Princeton good enough for ya? Now shut up loudmouth

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

Nope. Theyll tell you Princeton is tainted because of their religious origins even though they abandoned God a loooong Time ago

Princeton University was founded at Elizabeth, New Jersey, in 1746 as the College of New Jersey. New Light Presbyterians founded the College of New Jersey, later Princeton University, in 1746 in order to train ministers dedicated to their views

 

[PoliticalChic]

I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.

The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.

Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.

$1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.

Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?

Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.

How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.


Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.

No. I'll control my body and what is inside. Not you. My view is I don't give a fuck what you want because you are not in the position of power in this situation. I am. It doesn't matter what you want.

It's good to showcase the pro-lifers true motives, which have always been about control. That's why you have failed to stop abortion. You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.

It's not your body, you dunce.


Unless you're claiming that the pregnant woman has four arms and four legs, two types of blood, two sets of fingerprints and different DNA from every cell in the separate human being's body.


But....you are a dunce, so perhaps you are.


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?



Now, get lost, ugly.

 

[NotYourBody]

Now, get lost, ugly.

You really are a control freak aren't you!

You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.

Try again. Or give up. I don't care.

I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.

edit - you seem confused about my position. I take the position that I will not allow you to control MY BODY (hence the NotYourBody screen name), or any fetus inside of my body. Whether you think the fetus is part of my body or not is irrelevant to my position.

 

[NotYourBody]

They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards

I know. It's hard when you are unable to force your will on someone else.

 

[buttercup]

Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.

Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?

NotYourBody. Not your body either because one day the Grim Reaper is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO

Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!

If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.

James 4:17

So what?

Guess what?

Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.

You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.

It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.

All of which are extremely unconstitutional.

Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.

Stop taking that same right from everyone else.

If you think abortion is a religious issue, that is either ignorant or dishonest. SCIENCE is clear on when life begins, it has nothing to do with religion, that is why there are a growing number of secular or atheist pro-lifers.

Enough with the outdated ignorant stereotypes, set aside your knee-jerk political biases and open your eyes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, get lost, ugly.

You really are a control freak aren't you!

You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.

Try again. Or give up. I don't care.

I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.

Time and again when Liberals are left speechless, with no way to deny what I post.....they claim not to read it.


I don't care if you read it or not....but you can't deny it.
And that's the point.

You're a dunce and I believe we've just proven it.....together.
I'd say liar, too.....but I said Liberal already.

Everyone who's read our individual posts knows it......and so do you.



As for you body.....don't mention it again until you can get the marks of those ten foot poles off.

 

[NotYourBody]

Now, get lost, ugly.

You really are a control freak aren't you!

You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.

Try again. Or give up. I don't care.

I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.

Time and again when Liberals are left speechless, with no way to deny what I post.....they claim not to read it.


I don't care if you read it or not....but you can't deny it.
And that's the point.

You're a dunce and I believe we've just proven it.....together.
I'd say liar, too.....but I said Liberal already.

Everyone who's read our individual posts knows it......and so do you.



As for you body.....don't mention it again until you can get the marks of those ten foot poles off.

/yawn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards

I know. It's hard when you are unable to force your will on someone else.

The irony of that post....bet it escapes you.

You have no trouble forcing your will on a defenseless fetus.....the etymology of the term is 'offspring.'

You didn't know that, did you, dolt?



So, you're a government school grad?

 

[buttercup]

I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.

The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.

Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.

$1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.

Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?

Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.

How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.


Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.

No. I'll control my body and what is inside. Not you. My view is I don't give a fuck what you want because you are not in the position of power in this situation. I am. It doesn't matter what you want.

It's good to showcase the pro-lifers true motives, which have always been about control. That's why you have failed to stop abortion. You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.

It's not your body, you dunce.


Unless you're claiming that the pregnant woman has four arms and four legs, two types of blood, two sets of fingerprints and different DNA from every cell in the separate human being's body.


But....you are a dunce, so perhaps you are.


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?



Now, get lost, ugly.

Excellent posts, but unfortunately the person you posted to says "tl;dr" to any post longer than 3 sentences, and refuses to look at anything that will contradict her view. The epitome of willful blindness and willful ignorance. You're dealing with the exact type of person described in Proverbs 1.

 

[NotYourBody]

So, you're a government school grad?

Tell me how you aim to stop me from getting an abortion if that is my decision. Until you can do that, I have no reason to read anything you type.

But you can't. And that's why you are so aggravated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, get lost, ugly.

You really are a control freak aren't you!

You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.

Try again. Or give up. I don't care.

I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.

Time and again when Liberals are left speechless, with no way to deny what I post.....they claim not to read it.


I don't care if you read it or not....but you can't deny it.
And that's the point.

You're a dunce and I believe we've just proven it.....together.
I'd say liar, too.....but I said Liberal already.

Everyone who's read our individual posts knows it......and so do you.



As for you body.....don't mention it again until you can get the marks of those ten foot poles off.

/yawn.

Hey....wasn't that the same response you had to education????


But, heck.....thank you for coming by....until now, I had never met the result of a first cousin marriage.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

They all are in their zeal to kill innocents. Evil bastards

I know. It's hard when you are unable to force your will on someone else.

You're a one trick pony, sock. Gfy

 

[NotYourBody]

Truth hurts!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.

The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.

Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.

$1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.

Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?

Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.

How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.


Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.

No. I'll control my body and what is inside. Not you. My view is I don't give a fuck what you want because you are not in the position of power in this situation. I am. It doesn't matter what you want.

It's good to showcase the pro-lifers true motives, which have always been about control. That's why you have failed to stop abortion. You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.

It's not your body, you dunce.


Unless you're claiming that the pregnant woman has four arms and four legs, two types of blood, two sets of fingerprints and different DNA from every cell in the separate human being's body.


But....you are a dunce, so perhaps you are.


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?



Now, get lost, ugly.

Excellent posts, but unfortunately the person you posted to says "tl;dr" to any post longer than 3 sentences, and refuses to look at anything that will contradict her view. The epitome of willful blindness and willful ignorance. You're dealing with the exact type of person described in Proverbs 1.

That's the training Liberals get in government school.

And....they lie. They read it, just can't find a way to respond to it.



Just between us, b, when I post it is to the 10 to 5 folks who read a thread but don't post in same.
It's to let those folks see the truth they've been denied in school and in the media.


So....keep on keepin' on!

 

[beagle9]

Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.

No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.

The whole thing IS like a parent child thing. You are trying to claim a power you do not have the ability to possess.

You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion. We have clearly established that fact.

You don't have the ability to know if she is pregnant so you don't know you need to prevent her from having an abortion.

You don't know when an abortion has happened because no missing person is reported and there is no body.

If you get your way (you won't) the most you can do is put people in jail. 600,000 abortions (probably more) per year. You better start building those walls!

You didn't stop abortion, you just built more jails. It must be hard to live in such a SCARY world!!

Bless your precious hearts.

You libs/leftist are like arrogant petulant children who try to fool the grown ups, but it ain't working no matter how hard you try.

You try to use the stats prior to any law changing as if those stats would remain the same in violation of the law. If the law changes, then compliance will be next. Your 600,000 will instantly be reduced to a few thousand who would attempt to escape the law. Sadly that is what happens, but the help programs will be still intact or increased, but the monsters looking to extract living beings from their safe home inside their mothers womb will be a thing of the past. They will be unemployed or cross training into something else. Hopefully they will be unemployed/unemployable after the henious things that they have done.

 

[Moonglow]

Now, get lost, ugly.

You really are a control freak aren't you!

You'll need to be far more concise with your thoughts if you expect me to read them. That's just way too much word vomit that I have no interest in. And not one word of it will give you any control over my body OR the fetus inside of my body so it's completely irrelevant to my position.

Try again. Or give up. I don't care.

I do hope you had all that cut and pasted and didn't have to type it all out.

Time and again when Liberals are left speechless, with no way to deny what I post.....they claim not to read it.


I don't care if you read it or not....but you can't deny it.
And that's the point.

You're a dunce and I believe we've just proven it.....together.
I'd say liar, too.....but I said Liberal already.

Everyone who's read our individual posts knows it......and so do you.



As for you body.....don't mention it again until you can get the marks of those ten foot poles off.

/yawn.

Hey....wasn't that the same response you had to education????


But, heck.....thank you for coming by....until now, I had never met the result of a first cousin marriage.

TOS violation turn yerself in.

 

[Moonglow]

I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.

The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.

Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.

$1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.

Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?

Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.

How's this: keep your bloody intentions off a separate, unique individual and things will be fine.....and it won't cost a thing.


Your view is one of lack of concern because Liberals aren't big breeders....or lookers, which might explain the former.

No. I'll control my body and what is inside. Not you. My view is I don't give a fuck what you want because you are not in the position of power in this situation. I am. It doesn't matter what you want.

It's good to showcase the pro-lifers true motives, which have always been about control. That's why you have failed to stop abortion. You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.

It's not your body, you dunce.


Unless you're claiming that the pregnant woman has four arms and four legs, two types of blood, two sets of fingerprints and different DNA from every cell in the separate human being's body.


But....you are a dunce, so perhaps you are.


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?



Now, get lost, ugly.

Excellent posts, but unfortunately the person you posted to says "tl;dr" to any post longer than 3 sentences, and refuses to look at anything that will contradict her view. The epitome of willful blindness and willful ignorance. You're dealing with the exact type of person described in Proverbs 1.

That's the training Liberals get in government school.

And....they lie. They read it, just can't find a way to respond to it.



Just between us, b, when I post it is to the 10 to 5 folks who read a thread but don't post in same.
It's to let those folks see the truth they've been denied in school and in the media.


So....keep on keepin' on!

How would you know you are not from the USA...

 

[beagle9]

I will posit this one more time. All you pro-lifers took a pass when I first asked it, which is indicative of your true motives, imo.

The technology may not be far off to transfer a fetus from a woman to an incubator where gestation can be completed.

Suppose it were to cost $1,000,000 per fetus. I think that's a conservative estimate. In 2015 there were 638,000 abortions.

$1,000,000 x 638,000 = $638 BILLION per year. Plus the cost of finding homes for the unwanted children and caring for those that remain unwanted.

Do you think society should bear that cost? Do you think society is willing to bear that cost? Where would we get the money?

Your moral platitudes don't help solve the situation. Why don't you come up with solutions to unwanted children instead? Something that hasn't already failed. You'll have better luck.

Simple.... Once compliance is completed in any law, you won't have the convience of using your previous stats that you find so usable in the former situation, uh after compliance in the law is completed.

Backing away from the cliff is something we in this country have been doing for centuries. Do liberals/leftist think that they have sealed this nations fate ??? The arrogance of the left is astonishing these days, but they are facing a learning curve right now, so it's understandable.

 

[beagle9]

What is so amusing about the anti-abortion movement is that it is equivalent to outlawing incoming tides. If Roe is reversed, then the issue will be decided by states, and 15 or more states are NOT going to outlaw it. In addition, one can get abortion pills in the mail, now, and you can do it at home:

Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973

Well like you say in effect, that "modern day medicine has finally caught up", so really RvW is outdated and useless these days, and serves no purpose other than an evil one. If a person is raped of course they should report it, and then immediately take the morning day after pill in order to stop a pregnancy from ever getting started. The same goes for incest. Outside of those two, if a woman becomes pregnant due to having consentual sex with the one she loves just as it should be, and it was because neither used protection knowing the consequences of their actions, then both should own up to their responsibility, and do the right thing in life by not aborting the baby.

Killing a baby/life forming in the womb is the wrong thing to do, where as these things shouldn't be happening in 2019. Are the citizens getting dumber or smarter in life ??

Hard to tell anymore.

I'm STILL waiting for anyone who has a plan to FORCE a man to take responsibility for ALL of his unwanted children. A plan that hasn't already failed.

That would do your side a world of good convincing those who are willing to be convinced. I'm not sure why you aren't willing to concentrate your efforts in that area instead of demanding a women undergo lifetime changes to her physical body because you want a child in the world nobody is willing to care for. But that's just me....

Some of us are no longer willing to consider your arguments under any circumstances and you'll have to deal with it. We are absolutely not willing to let you have any say about the internal functions of our bodies.

Even the mere idea that you think you have the right to do that makes you as evil and vile as any slave owner in history. And just as worthless.

Nothing but ranting and raving out of you, and it's liken to an unlearned child attempting to make the rules instead of the parents making the rules in the household.

No amount of ranting justifies you wanting to take a human life just because you are more powerful than that life is at the time of your taking.

You all are still having trouble aren't you? Lol! Why is it that the Right won't/ can't answer my question about "when is the beginning of life", and how is it "killing" if they can't answer? Let me help you all out with that one. Because your religion/emotions/ ignorance tells you so. Thank goodness there is a separation of Church and State.

You have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd tunes their brains out when the brain is trying to tell them that they have no answer for when life begins, and so therefore, how is it killing "human life', when that very question has not been answered? It's called willful idiocy.

So you look at something that might appear to be dead to you, so you go ahead and thrust in the spike as so to ensure it's death although it may have been alive to begin with ??? You take chances like that in life do you ??? It's great you are not looked to in order to give life a chance, because it's obvious which way you would go.