"Pro life" is not a conservative position.

Because it is ALIVE in a stage of development. Run along with your stuoooopid questions or go back and take a seventh grade health class---pay attention this time.
Six weeks in a woman has not even missed her period yet and therefore not even considered buying a pregnancy tesr.
If she's not smart enough to realize that when she spread her legs there was a potential for pregnancy, then she shouldn't have spread them. The public education system has taught basic reproductive science to girls from sixth grade on for at least sixty years with information freely disseminated about birth control options and yes, the plan B pill. Stupidity is not a free pass to commit murder no matter how many democrats would like it to be so.
What is your point?
LOL, no sense in speaking to it anymore, junior. You haven't got the sense to understand reality anyway.
 
Because it is ALIVE in a stage of development.
That is true for a lot of lifeforms and says nothing about rights.
Run along with your stuoooopid questions or go back and take a seventh grade health class---pay attention this time.
Oh the irony.
If she's not smart enough to realize that when she spread her legs there was a potential for pregnancy, then she shouldn't have spread them.
My God. Get a life.

Calls himself pro-life --> has no life himself.

The public education system has taught basic reproductive science to girls from sixth grade on for at least sixty years with information freely disseminated about birth control options and yes, the plan B pill. Stupidity is not a free pass to commit murder no matter how many democrats would like it to be so.
I do not believe you are actually this ignorant.
LOL, no sense in speaking to it anymore, junior. You haven't got the sense to understand reality anyway.
Says the dude who believes in Jesus.
 
That is true for a lot of lifeforms
We're speaking of humans. There are laws regarding the murder of humans. Please keep up.
Calls himself pro-life --> has no life himself.
I don't know how old you are, but this type of response makes me question how you survived to adulthood.
I do not believe you are actually this ignorant.
You can't present a fact that you can support.
Says the dude who believes in Jesus.

LOL, when you pull your head out, please link to the post that supports your assumption.
 
Why?

My guy. Six weeks in a woman has not even missed her period yet and therefore not even considered buying a pregnancy tesr. Or she might actually even be pregmant without missing it and then pass the legal deadline before she does.

6 weeks is straight up r-tarded.
On avrage a woman’s menstrual cycle is 28 days. 6x7=42. Given that a woman can’t get pregnant until around day 14, a woman would definitely miss 1 period and probably 2. Do we need to explain how babies are made too? Maybe that’s the disconnect here.
If abortion is murder then why isn't the morning after pill too?
It is.
What is your point?
 
That is true for a lot of lifeforms and says nothing about rights.
We dont grant human rights to any other lifeforms other than humans. The clue is in the name.

We have to draw a line somewhere and "birth" is rather arbitrary. Babies can be born as early as halfway through gestation. If 2 children are conceived at the exact same moment in time. Why should the law grant protections to 1 because its location changed before the other?
Oh the irony.

My God. Get a life.

Calls himself pro-life --> has no life himself.


I do not believe you are actually this ignorant.

Says the dude who believes in Jesus.

The rest is just nonsensical gibberish
 
On avrage a woman’s menstrual cycle is 28 days. 6x7=42. Given that a woman can’t get pregnant until around day 14, a woman would definitely miss 1 period and probably 2. Do we need to explain how babies are made too? Maybe that’s the disconnect here.

Yikes. The only display of disconnect here is your shocking level of ignorance about the female body, once again proving that anti-abortionists have no clue about how pregnancy works or what their preferred legislation actually means in reality.

It is medically ignorant and inaccurate to assume every cycle is 28 days and even rather outdated. It is only just an average, not a standard; cycles vary between individuals and even month to month for the same person. Irregularities are common, and treating them like exceptions instead of the norm is just bad science. But, it is not like science has ever been your camp's starting point, so it is not surprising to see you make these claims.

The way in which you are measuring pregnancy is also inaccurate. It is not counted from conception, it is from the first day of the last menstrual period. That means someone who’s “six weeks pregnant” probably conceived only 2–3 weeks ago. So if she has a "regular" cycle, she might just now realize her period is late. And even that assumes she has symptoms, a predictable cycle, and access to a test. Many early symptoms feel like PMS too, so by the time someone buys a test and confirms they are pregnant, the legal window may already be closed. There is no magical “2–3 week free pass.” A six-week limit is, in practice, a total ban.

Not too forget the most cruel part of this, you are ignoring those hit the hardest, namely the young girls. A 13-year-old is not tracking ovulation. She might not even yet understand what is happening to her body yet. She cannot realistically be expected to recognize and process a pregnancy in time to meet your arbitrary legal deadline. So she will be forced into motherhood while she’s still a child herself.
 
We dont grant human rights to any other lifeforms other than humans. The clue is in the name.
Exactly and an embryo is nothing like a human at all.
We have to draw a line somewhere and "birth" is rather arbitrary.
how is birth "aribtrary"? It is very clear cut.

Babies can be born as early as halfway through gestation. If 2 children are conceived at the exact same moment in time. Why should the law grant protections to 1 because its location changed before the other?
Because they are born, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.
The rest is just nonsensical gibberish
Says you.
 
Very cute, but unfortunately pleading to emotion is not an argument.

Oh dry up. You think killing innocents is just peachy, I think you're a miserable ghoul.

How the fck is that? And get over you're above everyone. That's a progtard stance and never works
 
Denying that a heartbeat does not constitute life is the height of denial and does not come anywhere near the level of a discussion.
We just agreed "life" is not the standard of value here, but rather "human life" and a heartbeat is thus largely a non-essential.

I have no idea what your talking about.

My cat has a heartbeat...
 
15th post
Oh dry up. You think killing innocents is just peachy, I think you're a miserable ghoul.
You think cell clumps are more precious than our innocent 13 year old girls, you do not get to claim moral superiority here.
How the fck is that? And get over you're above everyone. That's a progtard stance and never works
I am above you on this.
 
Single cell organism = innocent life
Pregnant 13 year old = horrible and guilty monster deserved to be punished.

Once that "innocent life" inside her is born being raised by a 13 year old is apparently what is called "celebrating life".
 
You think cell clumps are more precious than our innocent 13 year old girls, you do not get to claim moral superiority here.

I am above you on this.

No you're not, like any left loon you were led to believe that. Public education? Probably
 
Exactly and an embryo is nothing like a human at all.
So which species is it? Were doctors unsure what type of animal is going to shoot out of a woman's vagina prior to ultrasounds? No wonder men weren't in the deliver rooms back in the day. It was a dangerous prospect back then. A crocodile or badger might come out of there how could we know?
how is birth "aribtrary"? It is very clear cut.
2 babies conceived at the exact same moment. One is born in week 30 has rights, the other can be aborted at the exact moment the first is born and has no rights. You're conferring rights on an individual based on location.
Because they are born, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.
So you think people's rights are granted based on geography and if that person is not in a specific location, it's ok to grant or restrict those rights based on that location. So if NC wanted to ban abortion you would be ok with that. Or if Canada wanted to have slavery you are cool with that. Because rights are tied to geography.
Says you.
 
Back
Top Bottom