Texas Abortion Ban Goes Into Effect With Help From SCOTUS

chris155au

Active member
So what are you saying? Because the aborted fetus looks terrible, we should stop all women from having an abortion at 12 weeks? Is 6 weeks okay? Since I am not carrying the fetal organism, or will look after the fetal organism, or will give birth to the fetal organism, or will spend the next 20 years raising the fetal organism, then if and when a woman chooses to abort this organism, it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS!
Correct, just as it is none of your business if a woman chooses to kill her BORN child, but you think that should be illegal.

This law bans ALL abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected(6 weeks). It allows for ANY private Texas citizen to sue ANY abortion provider, who aids, abets, assists or performs an abortion. This would include anyone driving a pregnant mother to an abortion clinic. Or, anyone(including her parents) who puts up the money for the mother to have an abortion. This law makes NO exception for rape or incest.

Instead of requiring public officials to enforce the law, this law allows individuals to bring civil lawsuits against abortion providers or anyone else found to "aid or abet" illegal abortions. Which now makes private citizens responsible in enforcing this law. But here is the worse part.

"Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider under this law could be awarded at least $10,000. And to prepare for that, Texas Right to Life has set up what it calls a "whistleblower" website where people can submit anonymous tips about anyone they believe to be violating the law.".
All of which is why I disagree with it, although not including the fact that there is no exception for incest. Why should there be an exception for incest?

A woman's right to have an abortion is covered in the "due process" clause in the 14th amendment, under privacy. It is loosely protected under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments.
Exactly - "loosely protected." VERY loosely protected. And again, the right to privacy doesn't exist and it first had to be invented.

"In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may NOT regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of “viability,” a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.".
So what do you think of the mention of "viability?"

What is your rationale?
My rationale for what?

You should really read about Norma McCorvey(Jane Roe). She had 3 pregnancies, which resulted in 3 children put up for adoption.
What's the relevance of the adoption?

ALL abortions that ALL women chose to have are ELECTIVE!! So you are just saying to ban ALL abortions that women ELECT to have.
"An abortion is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons." www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

Why do you think that the abortion issue is NOT a moral or religious issue?
I think that it IS a moral issue! What have I said to
make you think that I don't think it's a moral issue?

These are the people who think that conception is the beginning of human life. These are the people who believe that all HUMAN LIFE is protected by God. These are the people who think that terminating an unwanted pregnancy, is murder. These are the fanatics and nutcases, who don't give a shit about the the future of the child or the mother.
Well what do these people have to do with me?

You're better than this Chris!
Better than what?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Correct, just as it is none of your business if a woman chooses to kill her BORN child, but you think that should be illegal.
Correct!! It is none of my business if any woman wants to terminate her own pregnancy. Or, choose to remove the bake bean size organism developing inside of her body. Since stopping women from terminating their pregnancy would be impossible, the State then attack anyone who helps or assists them in carrying out their decision. This is about CHOICE, not PROCEDURE! If a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, then she should also have the right to SAFELY terminate her pregnancy.

If you want to call this embryo removal, "killing a human life", then I totally disagree with your definition. For biological and legal reasons.

All of which is why I disagree with it, although not including the fact that there is no exception for incest. Why should there be an exception for incest?
So life conceived from rape(or without the woman's knowledge or consent), is okay to kill, right? That makes you a hypocrite!!! The difference between Incest and rape is "consent". Therefore if the child is under the age of consent(sibling or not), incest can be indeed rape. A child doing what her father tells her, can be rape or incest. I'm sure that the wife might disagree with you. Should sibling mothers experimenting with sex, be forced to bring their pregnancy to term? How about those pregnancies where the child has little hope(because of a handicap/illness) of surviving, before or after birth? Shouldn't these exceptions also be included in your category of exceptions?? If so, then you are again a hypocrite.

Exactly - "loosely protected." VERY loosely protected. And again, the right to privacy doesn't exist and it first had to be invented.
I said,

"A woman's right to have an abortion is covered in the "due process" clause in the 14th amendment, under privacy. It is loosely protected under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments.".

This means that a woman's right to an abortion is COMPLETELY protected under the "due process clause" in the 14th Amendment under privacy. The loosely protected that you took out of context, was for the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. I won't ask you why, because you wouldn't have a clue.

So what do you think of the mention of "viability?"
It is clearly mentioned in reference to the last week of the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. The time where the babies organs and systems are fully developed enough to exist on its own, without any need of an incubator/isolette.

My rationale for what?
You stated,

"And this can be overturned. Again, it was a JOKE decision, based on a right to privacy which doesn't exist and first had to be invented. Again, even honest pro-choice liberals acknowledge this, and say that either abortion should be left up to the States, or alternatively, a federal law which 'codifies' Roe v Wade should be passed through the legislature.

So, what is your rationale for codifying a Supreme Court Ruling? What is your rationale for allowing States to determine their own abortion laws? Which States do you think would have the stricter laws? States along the "bible belt", or States like California and New York? So what is your rationale for calling this ruling a "JOKE"? Or, saying that this privacy right does NOT exist? Clear?

What's the relevance of the adoption?
Are you an advocate that mothers should bring children into the world, JUST TO BE ADOPTED??

"An abortion is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons." www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
"Elective" describes the type of procedure, and "voluntary" describes the mother's consent. Other than for a small number of exceptions, ALL abortions are elective and voluntary. So what is the argument you're trying to make here? Semantics?

I think that it IS a moral issue! What have I said to
make you think that I don't think it's a moral issue?
Oh I don't know, maybe from your comments.

"I am suggesting that we ban elective abortion procedures, but it has nothing to do with "moral and religious fanatics", whoever the hell they are.

Better than what?
Better than being a closed-minded one dimensional thinker.

Well what do these people have to do with me?
Do you NOT believe in the same things that these people believe in? The things that I've listed?
 

chris155au

Active member
Correct!! It is none of my business if any woman wants to terminate her own pregnancy. Or, choose to remove the bake bean size organism developing inside of her body. Since stopping women from terminating their pregnancy would be impossible, the State then attack anyone who helps or assists them in carrying out their decision. This is about CHOICE, not PROCEDURE! If a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, then she should also have the right to SAFELY terminate her pregnancy.
If she can do it herself, then nobody should stop her.

If you want to call this embryo removal, "killing a human life", then I totally disagree with your definition. For biological and legal reasons.
What is it then if not a human life? A NON-human life? Is it even ANY kind of life?

So life conceived from rape(or without the woman's knowledge or consent), is okay to kill, right? That makes you a hypocrite!!!
How does that make me a hypocrite?

The difference between Incest and rape is "consent". Therefore if the child is under the age of consent(sibling or not), incest can be indeed rape. A child doing what her father tells her, can be rape or incest. I'm sure that the wife might disagree with you.
I'm talking about incest between two consenting people
of age. Why should there be an exception for that?

Should sibling mothers experimenting with sex, be forced to bring their pregnancy to term?
Sibling mothers? Do you mean sibling KIDS?

How about those pregnancies where the child has little hope(because of a handicap/illness) of surviving, before or after birth? Shouldn't these exceptions also be included in your category of exceptions?? If so, then you are again a hypocrite.
With a risk of suffering? If so, then they should be aborted. How does that make me a hypocrite?

It is clearly mentioned in reference to the last week of the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. The time where the babies organs and systems are fully developed enough to exist on its own, without any need of an incubator/isolette.
You've already acknowledged that the point of viability is much earlier than the start of the 3rd trimester, LET ALONE the last week of it! You even 'liked' a post of mine in which I said that the point of viability at the moment is considered to be 23-24 weeks! Stop being inconsistent!

You stated,

"And this can be overturned. Again, it was a JOKE decision, based on a right to privacy which doesn't exist and first had to be invented. Again, even honest pro-choice liberals acknowledge this, and say that either abortion should be left up to the States, or alternatively, a federal law which 'codifies' Roe v Wade should be passed through the legislature.

So, what is your rationale for codifying a Supreme Court Ruling?
No not ME! This is what Democrats want. They want to 'codify' Roe v Wade in order that Roe v Wade will become irrelevant. At the moment, they are worried that
the conservative majority Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade,
but I'm sure that you're fully aware of that and share their concern.

What is your rationale for allowing States to determine their own abortion laws?
States control the health system don't they?

Which States do you think would have the stricter laws? States along the "bible belt", or States like California and New York?
Obviously States along the bible belt, but what's your point?

I said,

"A woman's right to have an abortion is covered in the "due process" clause in the 14th amendment, under privacy. It is loosely protected under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments.".

This means that a woman's right to an abortion is COMPLETELY protected under the "due process clause" in the 14th Amendment under privacy. The loosely protected that you took out of context, was for the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. I won't ask you why, because you wouldn't have a clue.
Not only is the so called constitutional right to privacy not found in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments, it's not ANYWHERE in the Constitution.

So what is your rationale for calling this ruling a "JOKE"? Or, saying that this privacy right does NOT exist?
"The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy." www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#United_States

Do you think that Roe v Wade goes far enough? Or do you
think that there should be no limit at all on abortion?

Are you an advocate that mothers should bring children into the world, JUST TO BE ADOPTED??
No. Why are you asking that? I was just confused why you mentioned Norma McCorvey's 3 children who were put up for adoption.

"Elective" describes the type of procedure, and "voluntary" describes the mother's consent. Other than for a small number of exceptions, ALL abortions are elective and voluntary. So what is the argument you're trying to make here? Semantics?
Included in the definition of elective:

(of surgical or medical treatment) chosen by the patient rather than urgently necessary.


I think that it IS a moral issue! What have I said to
make you think that I don't think it's a moral issue?
Oh I don't know, maybe from your comments.

"I am suggesting that we ban elective abortion procedures, but it has nothing to do with "moral and religious fanatics", whoever the hell they are.
Come on now. You're better than that! Saying that it has nothing to do with "moral and religious fanatics" is not the same as saying that it's not a moral issue! For one, the word "religious" and "fanatics" are in there too, and "moral and religious" are being used as adjectives to describe a certain type of "fanatic!" TOTALLY different!

Do you NOT believe in the same things that these people believe in? The things that I've listed?
I believe that conception is the beginning of human life
and that killing an unborn life is equivalent to murder.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
If she can do it herself, then nobody should stop her.



What is it then if not a human life? A NON-human life? Is it even ANY kind of life?



How does that make me a hypocrite?



I'm talking about incest between two consenting people
of age. Why should there be an exception for that?



Sibling mothers? Do you mean sibling KIDS?



With a risk of suffering? If so, then they should be aborted. How does that make me a hypocrite?



You've already acknowledged that the point of viability is much earlier than the start of the 3rd trimester, LET ALONE the last week of it! You even 'liked' a post of mine in which I said that the point of viability at the moment is considered to be 23-24 weeks! Stop being inconsistent!



No not ME! This is what Democrats want. They want to 'codify' Roe v Wade in order that Roe v Wade will become irrelevant. At the moment, they are worried that
the conservative majority Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade,
but I'm sure that you're fully aware of that and share their concern.



States control the health system don't they?



Obviously States along the bible belt, but what's your point?



Not only is the so called constitutional right to privacy not found in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments, it's not ANYWHERE in the Constitution.


"The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy." www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#United_States

Do you think that Roe v Wade goes far enough? Or do you
think that there should be no limit at all on abortion?



No. Why are you asking that? I was just confused why you mentioned Norma McCorvey's 3 children who were put up for adoption.



Included in the definition of elective:

(of surgical or medical treatment) chosen by the patient rather than urgently necessary.






Come on now. You're better than that! Saying that it has nothing to do with "moral and religious fanatics" is not the same as saying that it's not a moral issue! For one, the word "religious" and "fanatics" are in there too, and "moral and religious" are being used as adjectives to describe a certain type of "fanatic!" TOTALLY different!



I believe that conception is the beginning of human life
and that killing an unborn life is equivalent to murder.
Do you support capital punishment?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
If she can do it herself, then nobody should stop her.



What is it then if not a human life? A NON-human life? Is it even ANY kind of life?



How does that make me a hypocrite?



I'm talking about incest between two consenting people
of age. Why should there be an exception for that?



Sibling mothers? Do you mean sibling KIDS?



With a risk of suffering? If so, then they should be aborted. How does that make me a hypocrite?



You've already acknowledged that the point of viability is much earlier than the start of the 3rd trimester, LET ALONE the last week of it! You even 'liked' a post of mine in which I said that the point of viability at the moment is considered to be 23-24 weeks! Stop being inconsistent!



No not ME! This is what Democrats want. They want to 'codify' Roe v Wade in order that Roe v Wade will become irrelevant. At the moment, they are worried that
the conservative majority Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade,
but I'm sure that you're fully aware of that and share their concern.



States control the health system don't they?



Obviously States along the bible belt, but what's your point?



Not only is the so called constitutional right to privacy not found in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments, it's not ANYWHERE in the Constitution.


"The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy." www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#United_States

Do you think that Roe v Wade goes far enough? Or do you
think that there should be no limit at all on abortion?



No. Why are you asking that? I was just confused why you mentioned Norma McCorvey's 3 children who were put up for adoption.



Included in the definition of elective:

(of surgical or medical treatment) chosen by the patient rather than urgently necessary.






Come on now. You're better than that! Saying that it has nothing to do with "moral and religious fanatics" is not the same as saying that it's not a moral issue! For one, the word "religious" and "fanatics" are in there too, and "moral and religious" are being used as adjectives to describe a certain type of "fanatic!" TOTALLY different!



I believe that conception is the beginning of human life
and that killing an unborn life is equivalent to murder.
I'm not answering anymore of these silly and unending questions. Just defend your position with your own reasoning and your own evidence. I'm tired of arguing only with myself, answering silly tautologies, or arguing over irrelevant semantics. You have a right to your own opinion. And, I most definitely disagree with you. For the most obvious reasons.

If you believe that a human life begins at conception, then you are a moral and religious fanatic. No biological scientist, or medical professional would agree with this nonsense. The fertilized egg(zygote) at conception, has only the POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN LIFE. It is Not a human life in anyway. And, conception is also NOT the same as pregnancy or personhood! Whenever you try to reduce/conflate a complex reality to just a slogan, you only minimize the personhood of all women.

Again, if any woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, then that is their right. And, I will always defend their choice. But I will also defend the right of any woman TO have an abortion. Who am I to tell any woman, that she should, or should not take her pregnancy to term? What right do I have to impose my belief standards on anyone else? Even to my own children.

The reason why is simple. WHERE WILL IT END?? If you can force a woman to have a child they don't want, or force people to put something into their bodies that they don't want, then the door has opened, to allow the government even more private/personal intrusion into our lives. And, because you are a narrow minded, one-dimensional thinker, you will never understand lateral thinking.

Roe vs Wade only gives women the right to to CHOOSE to have an abortion without government interference. It doesn't force women to have one. Asking if it goes far enough makes no sense. Women have this right. That's as far as it goes!

And, regarding incest, if the mother is UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT, then it doesn't matter if she consents or not. It is still rape!

And, what part of viability don't you understand? I will print slowly. A TRUELY viable fetus would not need to be in an incubator/Isolette. It would be viable after NATURAL childbirth. This means that you can clamp the cord, and place the newborn onto the mother and it will began to suckle. Preemies are only viable outside of the womb,. if they are in an incubator/Isolette. Without the external environment for them to continue developing, THEY WILL NO LONGER BE VIABLE, AND WILL DIE.

I don't know how to put this any simpler. But go ahead and play with dates, times, or your own opinion of when human life begins, just to muddy the waters. But only the ignorant will be fooled. You clearly do not understand what the stages of human embryonic development entails. It is only when the cells start to differentiate...Never mind. Maybe ignorance IS bliss!
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
..


The INCONVENIENT TRUTH the "My Body, My Choice"
Pro-Choice Left won't tell you........

IT'S NOT PART OF YOUR BODY.....


If it were, the DNA would match EXACTLY......

..
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
..




The INCONVENIENT TRUTH the "My Body, My Choice"
Pro-Choice Left won't tell you........

IT'S NOT PART OF YOUR BODY.....




If it were, the DNA would match EXACTLY......

..

You are correct! No pro-choice advocate would ever say, that a growing embryo is NOT a part of the woman's body. BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BLATANTLY LYING! Even identical twins do not have 100% identical genes(copy number variants). But they are still a part of the woman's body. Even if the woman had the embryo of an orangutan growing inside of her body, it would still be a part of her body. ANYTHING that is attached to, or attached within her body, is a part of her body.

What does the genetic makeup of a embryo/fetus have to do with where it is located? Anyway, NO GROWING FETUS'S DNA WILL MATCH ITS MOTHER'S. This is because its genetic makeup, is made from both the mother and the father. But none of this nonsense has anything to do with where the embryo/fetus is located. It is located inside the uterus(womb), which is an organ, that is a part of a woman's reproductive system. Therefore, IT IS PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY! If the embryo/fetus a not part of a woman's body, then what IS it a part of?? The Body of Christ?? Fanatics!
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
..

Absolutely why a growing 100% LIVING HUMAN BABY within the womb is not part of the woman's body, it is not a functional part of that woman, if it were an actual part of the woman, the BABY's DNA would match the woman's DNA completely....match her like her kidney would.........or a finger.....or an eye.........match her DNA exactly........




..
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
..

Absolutely why a growing 100% LIVING HUMAN BABY within the womb is not part of the woman's body, it is not a functional part of that woman, if it were an actual part of the woman, the BABY's DNA would match the woman's DNA completely....match her like her kidney would.........or a finger.....or an eye.........match her DNA exactly........




..
So does the embryo/fetus function independent of the woman? No, it is totally dependent on the woman's body physiology. Is the tiny zygote imbedded in the lining of the uterus, not a part of the uterus(womb)? Of course it is part of the woman's uterus. What do you think the function of the uterus is? Is the uterus a part of the woman's body? Of course it is! Therefore, the tiny zygote is also part of the woman's body. How could you say that it isn't??

From a physical and rational perspective, this is argument is a no-brainer. But from a moral and spiritual perspective, this argument is only fantasy based in ignorance.

The DNA of the fertilized egg is a mix of the DNA from both the mother and the father, from the same human species. Therefore, it is impossible for the egg's DNA to be exactly the same as the mother's DNA(basic Bio 101). UNLESS THE EGG WAS CLONED ONLY FROM THE DNA OF THE MOTHER, RIGHT? And, even this would not be a perfect match. Also, if the the egg was totally different from the mothers DNA, the egg would spontaneously be aborted from the uterus.

This is only about choice. This is not about these cryptic, obtuse, and fallacious arguments that don't address the issue of choice. Either society will allow women to choose to terminate their own pregnancy, or it won't. You are saying, that because of a "bean-sized, independently living miniature human being", that all women must forfeit this right? Are you insane!! Unless you plan on looking after all the unwanted children that women will now be forced to bring to term, MYOB!! You are just killing young mothers, and forcing Abortion underground. Didn't people like you learn anything from prohibition???
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Don't give me your shit about what you think a BABY is....it's a Living Human Being, 100%. It deserves Human Respect & Protection until birth, after which the BABY will no longer be the mother's responsibility.

Terminating (another word for killing) that Human Being for any reason whatsoever prior to that birth is fucking MURDER...period! There is no justification for taking it's innocent life......none.

Rape & Incest are not acceptable reasons for it's Abortion MURDER.

The Pre-Born Innocent Infant Human Being...The Baby......is not responsible for it's conception, or the sins of it's father surrounding its conception. It does not deserve to die a most painful & horrible death as punishment for it's conception, on the contrary it's life deserves greater protection until & after it's born.

If the birth mother, who in many cases has suffered enough, refuses to accept it afterwards, at that time she has the option/choice to give it up for adoption. That's her choice......& there are many good organizations & charities that would be more than willing to take her newborn baby, & make sure it gets all the help it needs in order to continue on it's life's journey.



 
Last edited:

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I'll bet dream rider has never done a thing to help all those kids who because of crappy upbringing turn to a life of drugs and crime, or turn to the streets. I'll bet he's the first to say 'they should get a job' and stop sponging.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
I'll bet dream rider has never done a thing to help all those kids who because of crappy upbringing turn to a life of drugs and crime, or turn to the streets. I'll bet he's the first to say 'they should get a job' and stop sponging.
I advocate for life Smitty.......I advocate for each & every pre-born innocent child, that they be allowed to be born.....have a chance to live their life.....have a chance to excel & be an asset to society.....All you seem to do is continually advocate for the MURDER of generations of the Innocents.

Tell me.....what child born has any guarantee that their lives will be roses?

None......no one has any guarantee of a bright & trouble free future.......

Lives can change in any instant from good, to poor, to bad, to better, to great.....or anywhere in between.

It seems all you can do is parrot the MURDEROUS LEFT's agenda driven claims that any child spared death because their mother was denied an abortion, therefore they gave birth, & according to you & the MURDEROUS Left, guaranteeing those children, not subject to the abortionists wrath, a future of horror.........a life of drugs and crime, & a life on the streets as perpetual bludgers......

All Leftist lies......they are no worse off than an any others.......& you damn well know it Smitty........


So......Stop spreading the MURDEROUS, pro-death Left's black-tongued lies Smitty......You can be so much better than that.





..
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Don't give me your shit about what you think a BABY is....it's a Living Human Being, 100%. It deserves Human Respect & Protection until birth, after which the BABY will no longer be the mother's responsibility.
Yes Dreamer, a BABY IS a living breathing human being, 100%. And we DON'T ABORT BABIES!! But a zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a living breathing human being, 100%!! Is the human heart a living breathing human being? Is the human brain a living breathing human being? Is the human kidney a living breathing human being? How about hair, eyes, or the nails? So HOW is a human zygote or a human embryo a living breathing human being?? Pre-born or will become! If the human zygote or embryo were to embed in the tubes(ectopic pregnancy), it would be excised out as any other cancerous growth. The human zygote is a developing organism, growing inside of the mother's body. This organism is NOT COGNIZENT OF LIFE OR DEATH, or is pondering the existential meaning of life.

Clearly you don't give a shit about what happens to the unwanted newborn. And clearly you are completely delusional, if you believe that the mother is no longer responsible for her child after birth. Since morally and legally she is. If she chooses to give up this responsibility, then THAT IS HER CHOICE. You would gladly sacrifice the lives of the mothers of unwanted pregnancies, or the lives of the unwanted children from unwanted pregnancies, and the personal freedom of choice for all women to safely terminate their own pregnancy. All for the most selfish of all causes, "Conceptualized Innocence". Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are only a developing organisms within the mother. THEY ARE NOT ALIVE, THEY HAVE NO LIFE, AND THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT INNOCENT LIFES!!! Except when contrived by moral and religious fanatics.

Rape & Incest is not an acceptable reason for it's murder. The Infant pre-born Human Being...the Baby......is not responsible for it's conception.
Rape and incest are no reason to commit murder. But they are very good reasons for a mother to terminate her pregnancy. Neither the Mother nor the "pre-born human being" were consensual or responsible for the rape or the incest, right? So why are you willing to sacrifice the mother and not her egg? Both are innocent!

It does not deserve to die a most painful & horrible death as punishment for it's conception, on the contrary it's life deserves greater protection until & after it's born.
Absolute bullshit and ignorant fear mongering. Science clearly shows that the fetus can't feel pain until the 3rd trimester(week 27). This is because the nervous system is not connected yet.

If the birth mother, who in many cases has suffered enough, refuses to accept it afterwards, at that time she has the option/choice to give it up for adoption. That's her choice......& there are many good organizations & charities that would be more than willing to take her newborn baby, & make sure it gets all the help it needs in order to continue on it's life's journey.
In other words, fuck 'em, right? Just as long as the mother brings her pregnancy to term, who cares what happens to the unwanted child? Let someone else(not me) look after a child, that their own mother doesn't want, right? How do you think a child will feel, knowing that he/she was not wanted, and abandoned by their own mother? Sorry, for a moment there I thought you gave a shit! You are no different than all other religious fanatics. The more simple the belief is, the less complex your thoughts are.

Look, I've told you before, if you are serious about stopping abortions, then simply make it illegal for men to have sex without using contraception! And any woman you impregnate by NOT using contraception, the woman has the option for an abortion, and you are imprisoned for up to 10 years(Rape, by non-use of contraception). Seems to me like a very simple solution to a simple problem. What do you say Dreamer? Let's lobby for mandatory contraception(condoms and pills) for men. And mandatory contraception(IUD's and pills) for women? Do you think this might be a better solution, then flooding the world with hundreds of thousands of unwanted children???

Ben Carson, really!! Does he now know the difference between an OREO cookie, and REO(real estate owned) homes? It is best that he sticks to brain surgery. And since religious and moral nutcases ARE waging war on all mothers who choose to have an abortion, his comments are more of the same gibberish we've come to expect.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Yes Dreamer, a BABY IS a living breathing human being, 100%. ........
Quit all your bullshit......I don't buy any of your crap.....all you are continually trying to do is convince yourself that your rubbish is real.....all you peddle is death.....whereas, we on the pro-life side offer LIFE.....We advocate for life......but hey....keep trying to convince yourself & the other weak minded death peddlers.....
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I advocate for life Smitty...

no you don't ... you're just trying to enforce your misguided morals onto others. An embryo has no more 'life' than the cells in your hair and nails. Do you cry 'murder' when you get a hair cut? or trim your nails? All an embryo is is a potential life. The process to get to life is only just beginning.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Quit all your bullshit......I don't buy any of your crap.....all you are continually trying to do is convince yourself that your rubbish is real.....all you peddle is death.....whereas, we on the pro-life side offer LIFE.....We advocate for life......but hey....keep trying to convince yourself & the other weak minded death peddlers.....

The only thing that I peddle is truth, reality, and choice. NOT this fundamentalist pseudo-sophist bullshit that you are peddling. Unlike you, I'm a realist and a rationalist. I don't need to use lies, disinformation, and ignorance to shock people into supporting my position.

You are just another hypocrite enjoying a freshly killed and prepared steak. You are just another hypocrite who believes in legally killing another human being, in spite of the percentage of those who were later proven innocent. You are just another hypocrite who enjoys watching fish squirm and die on the end of your hook, while you relax in a boat. You are just another hypocrite who never had this moment of clarity when killing enemies on the battlefield. You are just another insecure hypocrite searching for validation and attention, and preaching only to the choir.

Either ALL life is precious, deserving of respect, and should never be killed. Or, NO life is precious, deserving of respect, and should never be killed. You can't just pick and chose WHICH life, and WHAT life. That is what makes you a hypocrite. But of course ALL fanatics are hypocrites. I remember what my father always told me, "Those who scream the loudest, usually have the most to hide".
 
Top