chris155au
Active member
Well, that's using my definition of "baby." You're free to explain how the unborn has less of a right to life than the born, but I won't be expecting much!
⮞ Texas Abortion Ban Stays In Effect With Help From SCOTUS ⮜
- Thread starter DreamRyderX
- Start date
ands your question was asked in relation to? .... just keep following the bouncing ball backwards , you'll get there.
chris155au
Active member
DreamRyderX
Active member
Way to stick to it Chris!!!.......now watch for their 'artful' dodge
They're just Mad, Mad because it's estimated that the Texas Abortion LAW has saved 2,500+ BABIES from their murderous Abortion Loving butchers with their knives, & suction machines..........kept them from tearing those little innocent BABIES to pieces, insuring their most horrible & inhumane deaths!..........
A woman's Right to Choose.......no, they want to protect a Woman's Right to MURDER!!!!!!
They're just Mad, Mad because it's estimated that the Texas Abortion LAW has saved 2,500+ BABIES from their murderous Abortion Loving butchers with their knives, & suction machines..........kept them from tearing those little innocent BABIES to pieces, insuring their most horrible & inhumane deaths!..........
A woman's Right to Choose.......no, they want to protect a Woman's Right to MURDER!!!!!!
Last edited:
greggerypeccary
Active member
Babies?Way to stick to it Chris!!!.......now watch for their 'artful' dodge
They're just Mad, Mad because it's estimated that the Texas Abortion LAW has saved 2,500+ BABIES from their murderous Abortion Loving butchers with their knives, & suction machines..........
No.
It's quite clear you don't understand what an abortion actually is.
so what part are you struggling with?
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
I wouldn't need to back up anything I say, if you had any biological sense at all. You are an example of why a little knowledge can be such a dangerous thing to have. Any scientist or anyone with even a cursory understanding of human biology would know, that anything with a different DNA than the mother would be treated as foreign/alien to the mother's body. And, would be attacked by her immune system. So when I say alien, I'm not talking about little green men. For you to use semantics to distort!OF COURSE we are! You can't even defend your own position! How telling! "The mother's immune system would normally kill this alien." What an insane pile of TOTAL NONSENSE!
Why Doesn't a Pregnant Woman's Body Attack the Alien Fetus?
Of all the miracles of life, here’s by far the most miraculous of all: Women’s bodies, for the most part, do not attack and destroy the fetus growing...
slate.com
The alien within: Fetal cells influence maternal health during pregnancy (and long after)
Dramatic research has shown that during pregnancy, cells of the fetus often migrate through the placenta, taking up residence in many areas of the mother's body, where their influence may benefit or undermine maternal health.
www.sciencedaily.com
AAAS
www.science.org
But you could have also looked these up, if you really wanted to know. I am NOT trying to defend MY position. It is totally based in science, and does not need to be defended. Your position is based only in a belief. A belief that is NOT based in fact or logic. So I am very pleased to disappoint you.
But you are right! To the scientifically illiterates like you, it IS just a pile of total nonsense! The sad problem is, is that there are so many of you uninformed hypocrites out there, that can't make any distinctions between a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, or even a "preemie". They are the ignorant fanatical romantics, who will ignore these differences, and see only a potential walking talking living human being. A human being who deserves the right to live. But it is in the exceptions that makes them all hypocrites.
They don't give a shit about the baby's life after birth, the health of the mother during birth, the circumstances before conception or birth, the health concerns of the baby during and after birth, or the constitutionally protected abortion rights of the mother before birth. They are all just blind followers of the moral imperative of the 5th Commandment(Thou shall not kill). Of course this would require a belief that we were created by a God in the first place.
Please think about it dumb-dumb. Any woman who has taken their pregnancy to the third trimester, is not looking to terminate her pregnancy, right? Unless there is a serious threat to her life, or the life of the fetus, she wants to continue her pregnancy to term. We are only talking about the right of all mothers to decide, long before her 3rd trimester, if they want to terminate their pregnancy.Roe v Wade = after the point have viability, States can ban elective abortion and only abortion to save the life of the mother must be provided. Simple!
Now I wanted to stop this, because I knew how it would end. You would continue to ask more and more questions, until I gave up answering them. And , like a child, begin pounding your chest in victory. This is exactly what you did(not including the metaphor). Clearly this is just a waste of both our times. Because you don't care what other's have to say. And, you offer nothing to support your own position. Other than air and endless questions.
chris155au
Active member
Of course, which has NOTHING to do with the unborn! I thought that you were saying that "the mother's immune system would normally kill" an unborn life.
Thanks for demonstrating that the unborn are so SPECIAL, that they are not killed by a woman's immune system! How you can POSSIBLY think that this helps your pro-choice argument, I will NEVER know!Why Doesn't a Pregnant Woman's Body Attack the Alien Fetus?
Of all the miracles of life, here’s by far the most miraculous of all: Women’s bodies, for the most part, do not attack and destroy the fetus growing...The alien within: Fetal cells influence maternal health during pregnancy (and long after)
Dramatic research has shown that during pregnancy, cells of the fetus often migrate through the placenta, taking up residence in many areas of the mother's body, where their influence may benefit or undermine maternal health.www.sciencedaily.comAAAS
The point of viability is during SECOND trimester. Roe v Wade does not guarantee abortion after viability. Simple!
You're assuming that no woman would have a change of heart and want to terminate.
This post had precisely ZERO questions, but you still had nothing in response! www.polanimal.com.au/index.php?threads/texas-abortion-ban-goes-into-effect-with-help-from-scotus.7005/page-11#post-187661
chris155au
Active member
I'm not struggling with ANY part of what Mothra said. I responded to it.
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
This is exactly why I don't want to continue. You are just twisting and misrepresenting everything I say. Or everything I present. You just don't think period. What do you think would happen if we implanted a monkey embryo into a human womb? And Why? You simply conflate an incredible physiological function, as only the proof of how precious the life of an embryo really is. That is insane!
We have also already gone through what viability means. And, it is only relevant to Roe vs. Wade in terms of the level of government intervention. NOT ANY MORAL ISSUES!!
Most women are not going to wait until their 3rd trimester before they decide to terminate their pregnancy. That is my rational opinion, based on the 90% of all abortions, that happen before then. This was NOT meant to be a fact!!
So, I'm not going to waste my time(or yours). Play your games somewhere else. These arguments are just not in good faith. We are done!!
chris155au
Active member
Looks like your backing out of debate has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with me asking any questions considering that I'm not asking any! It was just your pathetic excuse!
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
Even insane serial killers had their own supporters and followers. So why should this pathetic, immature stooge be any different? At least, he and his company seem intellectually consistent!!
This law has condemned 2,500+ babies to be abandoned, to be put up for adoption and foster care, to live unloved by their mothers, to be found dead in dumpsters, and to increase the numbers of mothers dying from unsafe abortions. Texas should be proud. They have given into the lunacy of adults, who still believe in fairy tales.
This sounds like the uninformed rantings of a lunatic. No one has killed even ONE baby! No one has committed even ONE murder! Not ONE person is an "Abortion-loving butcher! And not ONE person is tearing any babies to pieces. This is just a belief, that you have conceived somewhere inside your delusional mind! But, if there is still one ounce of sanity left, or one cognitive skill that you can still use, I will make this incredibly simple. Either women have the right(natural or legal) to control their own reproductive system, OR they DON'T!! It is as simple as that. So your argument should be about a woman's choice. NOT about what she chooses, or a medical procedure.
So either go and lobby for men to take away a woman's right to control a part of her own body, or go peddle your deranged emotion-seeking pathos to the choir. Because the rest of us do not see the world only in black and white.
You are certainly welcome to your beliefs. And, I will defend your right to have and express them. BUT NOT TO FORCE OTHERS TO FOLLOW THEM! Especially, when your beliefs will create more harm to society, than it will benefit.
chris155au
Active member
Yep, so much 'artful dodging!' @Shellandshilo1956's excuse for dodging is that I'm asking questions, even when I'm not asking any questions!Way to stick to it Chris!!!.......now watch for their 'artful' dodge
DreamRyderX
Active member
..
If Abortion is so Morally Acceptable,
Why do Drawings Like This Make "Pro-Choicers" so Apoplectic!?
Why do Drawings Like This Make "Pro-Choicers" so Apoplectic!?
Last edited:
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
You are truly a sad, and pathetic piece of work. You openly state that killing of the innocent life is morally repugnant, and should be forbidden. Yet you don't mind the killing of animals for sport(including fishing). You don't mind the killing of humans for capital offences, even when a small percentage of those executed are innocent(and proven innocent later). You don't care about the killing of the innocent baby if the mother was raped, or the baby had no chance for survival outside of the womb. This is all hypocritical, and you can't see it.Yep, so much 'artful dodging!' @Shellandshilo1956's excuse for dodging is that I'm asking questions, even when I'm not asking any questions!
You must really have no self-respect left. But you are right, as long as you can go the distance, that is all that matters, right??
chris155au
Active member
I've only ever talked about innocent HUMAN life.
Yes, you have raised the major anti-death penalty argument - the possibility of innocent people being sentenced to death. But is the alternative that much better? Life in prison?
I agree with you with abortion for rape. What's the problem?
You don't have the greatest memory. Earlier in the thread you asked:
To which I replied:
To which you acknowledged, saying:
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
Are you now saying that a viable fetus or preemie is NOT an innocent human life? I'm getting whiplash from your inconsistencies.
YES!!!!!! Because it IS STILL LIFE!! But again not the point. What is Blackstone's ratio? It is better to let 10 guilty people go free, than for 1 innocent person to suffer. This would definitely apply to the Capital Punishment!!
The problem is, that you are a hypocrite. You preach about how it is murder to kill an innocent embryo or fetus in the womb. You claim that the fetus is not responsible for how it was conceived. You clearly support the anti-abortion and pro-life ethos. And yet you don't have a problem aborting an unborn life that may NOT survive, or may suffer outside of the womb. Or, the unborn life that is conceived as a result of the mother being raped. Since rape means without consent, it would also include statutory rape.
If you are truly pro life, or anti-abortion, then there should not be any exceptions. The unborn life should be protected under any circumstances. Are there any other exceptions to your pro-life anti-abortion beliefs you want to make? My belief is simple and consistent(no exceptions). Women have the right to terminate their own pregnancies, under ANY circumstances. I play zero role in the child's life, therefore I play zero role in a mother's decisions. It is none of my business.
At least DreamryderX is consistent. He makes absolutely no exceptions. He would gladly sacrifice any woman's life, to save the life of a pea-sized embryo. He would gladly condemn unwanted babies to a long and miserable life. He would agree that anyone aiding abetting in an illegal abortion, should be shot on sight. But then again, it is usually the people who scream the loudest, who have the most to hide.
Also, this is only about choice, and government interference. If women have the right to an abortion, then they should also have the right to a safe abortion.
Last edited:
chris155au
Active member
@DreamRyderX, I assume that this is total nonsense, and that you make a exception to save the mothers life?
Then the baby will die. What a gobsmackingly stupid question.
Think about it.
chris155au
Active member
I cannot for the LIFE of me think what I said that made you think that I am saying that!
I admit my inconsistency in that. I just cannot help but think that there is something illegitimate about a life conceived by such an evil act. I cannot bring myself to believe that it's okay to not give a woman the option of erasing this experience from her life, the kid forever being a reminder of it.
I seriously don't know why you think that this is being inconsistent! In this situation, the kid could SUFFER if not aborted!
Including to save the life of the mother?
It's none of your business, but yet presumably you agree that it is immoral for a mother to kill her BORN child.