No Difference Between Newtown and Abortion

[SAYIT]

There is no biological proof of "personhood" as a fetus. They have not developed enough to feel pain. I do not see anything wrong with it. It is better than living in an orphanage, their moms shoving a coathanger in themselves, or end up starving in a dumpster on the hooker block of downtown.

Can we have a civil conversation on abortion or is the subject untouchable?

 

[SAYIT]

As am I. Warbler remains a piece of human trash.

What's your take on 55 million killed babies via abortion, assbreath? You OK with that?

I'm just fine with a woman choosing to abort a fetus. Thanks for asking, ya piece of human trash.

That fetus we so casually disgard is a human fetus, Art, and evidently the real human trash. I know everyone knows this but willfully and conveniently chooses to avoid that truth. I can live with what we decide as a nation but we should at least admit what we're doing.
Can we talk about abortion without the character assassination?

 

[NoNukes]

What is the difference between a child in the womb and a child in a schoolroom Libberhoids? More than 55 million just-as-innocent kids have been killed by abortion doctors since Roe v. Wade became law in 1973.

I have an idea. Let's ban assault rifles and the tools of the abortion trade, you know, in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Abortion is legal.

 

[Warrior102]

Abortion is legal.

So was slavery.

Next point of brilliance?

 

[L.K.Eder]

you mean fetuses? Not the same my friend.

A fetus is a human being, you public-school educated inbred.

You have some high ground here, Warrior. If you let these chimps turn this thread into a pissing contest nothing will be gained.

bwahaahhaah

 

[NoNukes]

you mean fetuses? Not the same my friend.

A fetus is a human being, you public-school educated inbred.

Not until it is born.

 

[Warrior102]

Not until it is born.

Resume sucking your thumb, asswipe. Seriously.

 

[SAYIT]

What is the difference between a child in the womb and a child in a schoolroom Libberhoids? More than 55 million just-as-innocent kids have been killed by abortion doctors since Roe v. Wade became law in 1973.

I have an idea. Let's ban assault rifles and the tools of the abortion trade, you know, in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Abortion is legal.

Fair enough but morally we are on pretty shaky ground and dismissing the aborted as just a fetus is lame.

 

[Warrior102]

you mean fetuses? Not the same my friend.

A fetus is a human being, you public-school educated inbred.

Not until it is born.

It?

Where did you receive your education?

 

[Wry Catcher]

stay classy, warbler

Stay? When has that disgusting piece of shit ever been classy?

 

[TNHarley]

Woo. Over a dozen responses to Warrior's OP and only one opinion on the subject at hand and even that was a bit twisted:
"There is no biological proof of "personhood" as a fetus. They have not developed enough to feel pain. I do not see anything wrong with it. It is better than living in an orphanage, their moms shoving a coathanger in themselves, or end up starving in a dumpster on the hooker block of downtown." - Harley

There is merit to the logic of your conclusion (in bold relief) but requiring bio proof of "personhood?" Really? We don't know what is in that mama's womb? Frankly, calling that baby a "fetus" does not change its human status and I'm amused by those who call themselves "pro-abortion."
We do need to have a rational conversation, sans personal attacks, on a subject that takes so many lives because I believe the hypocrisy involved is eating at our national soul.
We should admit what we are doing and at the very least stop referring to those dead kids as "fetuses."

I think it is a subjective opinion.
"Life begins at conception." Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since.
The beginning of human personhood is the period in an individual's life when he or she is recognized, or begins to be recognized, as a person. The precise timing and nature of this occurrence is not universally agreed upon, and has been the subject of discussion and debate in science, religion and philosophy. The question of when and how personhood begins is the often the nexus of controversy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.(wikipedia)
If you look at it from a neuroscience POV, there is not even brain activity within the first trimester(which is when you can abort).
Beneath that stage, not a person. At or above that stage, there is much more of a debate

 

[Warrior102]

Woo. Over a dozen responses to Warrior's OP and only one opinion on the subject at hand and even that was a bit twisted:
"There is no biological proof of "personhood" as a fetus. They have not developed enough to feel pain. I do not see anything wrong with it. It is better than living in an orphanage, their moms shoving a coathanger in themselves, or end up starving in a dumpster on the hooker block of downtown." - Harley

There is merit to the logic of your conclusion (in bold relief) but requiring bio proof of "personhood?" Really? We don't know what is in that mama's womb? Frankly, calling that baby a "fetus" does not change its human status and I'm amused by those who call themselves "pro-abortion."
We do need to have a rational conversation, sans personal attacks, on a subject that takes so many lives because I believe the hypocrisy involved is eating at our national soul.
We should admit what we are doing and at the very least stop referring to those dead kids as "fetuses."

I think it is a subjective opinion.
"Life begins at conception." Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since.
The beginning of human personhood is the period in an individual's life when he or she is recognized, or begins to be recognized, as a person. The precise timing and nature of this occurrence is not universally agreed upon, and has been the subject of discussion and debate in science, religion and philosophy. The question of when and how personhood begins is the often the nexus of controversy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.(wikipedia)
If you look at it from a neuroscience POV, there is not even brain activity within the first trimester(which is when you can abort).
Beneath that stage, not a person. At or above that stage, there is much more of a debate

That's what I believe.

 

[SAYIT]

Woo. One can only wonder about the rationality and cowardice of some here. A lowlife with his REP turned off just negged REPed me for having the temerity to have an opinion with which he obviously disagrees. Pathetic, but such is his character.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Woo. One can only wonder about the rationality and cowardice of some here. A lowlife with his REP turned off just negged REPed me for having the temerity to have an opinion with which he obviously disagrees. Pathetic, but such is his character.

a very interesting observation.

almost as interesting as you observing that the OP has some high ground.

 

[TNHarley]

Woo. Over a dozen responses to Warrior's OP and only one opinion on the subject at hand and even that was a bit twisted:
"There is no biological proof of "personhood" as a fetus. They have not developed enough to feel pain. I do not see anything wrong with it. It is better than living in an orphanage, their moms shoving a coathanger in themselves, or end up starving in a dumpster on the hooker block of downtown." - Harley

There is merit to the logic of your conclusion (in bold relief) but requiring bio proof of "personhood?" Really? We don't know what is in that mama's womb? Frankly, calling that baby a "fetus" does not change its human status and I'm amused by those who call themselves "pro-abortion."
We do need to have a rational conversation, sans personal attacks, on a subject that takes so many lives because I believe the hypocrisy involved is eating at our national soul.
We should admit what we are doing and at the very least stop referring to those dead kids as "fetuses."

I think it is a subjective opinion.
"Life begins at conception." Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since.
The beginning of human personhood is the period in an individual's life when he or she is recognized, or begins to be recognized, as a person. The precise timing and nature of this occurrence is not universally agreed upon, and has been the subject of discussion and debate in science, religion and philosophy. The question of when and how personhood begins is the often the nexus of controversy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.(wikipedia)
If you look at it from a neuroscience POV, there is not even brain activity within the first trimester(which is when you can abort).
Beneath that stage, not a person. At or above that stage, there is much more of a debate

That's what I believe.

I respect that. Subjective opinion brother

 

[uscitizen]

stay classy, warbler

That is as classy as the worrier gets.

 

[Ravi]

4 pages later and warbler is still being a coward.

 

[NoNukes]

A fetus is a human being, you public-school educated inbred.

Not until it is born.

It?

Where did you receive your education?

It is it until it is alive. You are no one to speak about education.

 

[SAYIT]

Woo. Over a dozen responses to Warrior's OP and only one opinion on the subject at hand and even that was a bit twisted:
"There is no biological proof of "personhood" as a fetus. They have not developed enough to feel pain. I do not see anything wrong with it. It is better than living in an orphanage, their moms shoving a coathanger in themselves, or end up starving in a dumpster on the hooker block of downtown." - Harley

There is merit to the logic of your conclusion (in bold relief) but requiring bio proof of "personhood?" Really? We don't know what is in that mama's womb? Frankly, calling that baby a "fetus" does not change its human status and I'm amused by those who call themselves "pro-abortion."
We do need to have a rational conversation, sans personal attacks, on a subject that takes so many lives because I believe the hypocrisy involved is eating at our national soul.
We should admit what we are doing and at the very least stop referring to those dead kids as "fetuses."

I think it is a subjective opinion.
"Life begins at conception." Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since.
The beginning of human personhood is the period in an individual's life when he or she is recognized, or begins to be recognized, as a person. The precise timing and nature of this occurrence is not universally agreed upon, and has been the subject of discussion and debate in science, religion and philosophy. The question of when and how personhood begins is the often the nexus of controversy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.(wikipedia)
If you look at it from a neuroscience POV, there is not even brain activity within the first trimester(which is when you can abort).
Beneath that stage, not a person. At or above that stage, there is much more of a debate

Thanks for the thoughtful response - some overzealous prick already negged me without even knowing my position - and you mean all life began 3 and a half billion years ago but the lives we willfully abort began at their conception. I agree the issue is subjective and is replete with biological, philosophical and religious components.
I do think the matter is at least important enough to merit rational conversation.
I'm disappointed that so many simply shot the messenger.

 

[NoNukes]

Woo. Over a dozen responses to Warrior's OP and only one opinion on the subject at hand and even that was a bit twisted:
"There is no biological proof of "personhood" as a fetus. They have not developed enough to feel pain. I do not see anything wrong with it. It is better than living in an orphanage, their moms shoving a coathanger in themselves, or end up starving in a dumpster on the hooker block of downtown." - Harley

There is merit to the logic of your conclusion (in bold relief) but requiring bio proof of "personhood?" Really? We don't know what is in that mama's womb? Frankly, calling that baby a "fetus" does not change its human status and I'm amused by those who call themselves "pro-abortion."
We do need to have a rational conversation, sans personal attacks, on a subject that takes so many lives because I believe the hypocrisy involved is eating at our national soul.
We should admit what we are doing and at the very least stop referring to those dead kids as "fetuses."

I think it is a subjective opinion.
"Life begins at conception." Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since.
The beginning of human personhood is the period in an individual's life when he or she is recognized, or begins to be recognized, as a person. The precise timing and nature of this occurrence is not universally agreed upon, and has been the subject of discussion and debate in science, religion and philosophy. The question of when and how personhood begins is the often the nexus of controversy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.(wikipedia)
If you look at it from a neuroscience POV, there is not even brain activity within the first trimester(which is when you can abort).
Beneath that stage, not a person. At or above that stage, there is much more of a debate

That's what I believe.

There are different opinions on the subject. Obviously, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.