NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 26,302
- 5,544
- 245
ding220810-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”
NFBW220810-#4,622 My support for a woman to be able to choose to continue or end a pregnancy is based on my secular humanist respect for women as equals to men and no respect for what some Christians opine that sacred life begins at conception. I believe sacred life begins at viability and it should not be a matter that is to be determined by expecting politicians to vote on it. That is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. END2208110026
NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????
ding220811-#4,624 But the reason you deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization is because it's easier for you to dismiss their death and right to life if you don't see them as human beings.
You want to play king. Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.
NFBW: ding knew my point on murder back in August. He is hard up for distraction to not know I argued that abortion was murder when a fetus reached viability at 22 weeks. If a woman does not choose to abort by a viability date then she needs a medical resson such as her life is in danger.
ding220814-#4,808 So just to be clear, you believe abortion is murder 1 day after your so called "viability" date. What is it called 1 day prior to your so called "viability" date when the human life is killed?
NFBW: We can’t trust anything ding writes to be honest - he is throwing crap at the wall after engaging a little.
END2221300200
NFBW220810-#4,622 My support for a woman to be able to choose to continue or end a pregnancy is based on my secular humanist respect for women as equals to men and no respect for what some Christians opine that sacred life begins at conception. I believe sacred life begins at viability and it should not be a matter that is to be determined by expecting politicians to vote on it. That is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. END2208110026
NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????
ding220811-#4,624 But the reason you deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization is because it's easier for you to dismiss their death and right to life if you don't see them as human beings.
You want to play king. Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.
NFBW: ding knew my point on murder back in August. He is hard up for distraction to not know I argued that abortion was murder when a fetus reached viability at 22 weeks. If a woman does not choose to abort by a viability date then she needs a medical resson such as her life is in danger.
ding220814-#4,808 So just to be clear, you believe abortion is murder 1 day after your so called "viability" date. What is it called 1 day prior to your so called "viability" date when the human life is killed?
NFBW: We can’t trust anything ding writes to be honest - he is throwing crap at the wall after engaging a little.
END2221300200
Last edited: