Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, jerra- said:

 

you never specified when a partial abortion would be safer than a c section. 

 

 

You never specified when "an abortion would not better than a c section in a medical emergency".

 

YOU:   you simply said a a partial birth abortion would be safer than a c section, 

 

I said abortions were safer than C-sections. Why is it that you are incapable of posting without distorting and lying about what was said?

 

YOU:  partial birth abortions take place from 7 months to full term. 

 

Can you support your claim that "an abortion would not better than a c section in a medical emergency", or can't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Bump!  Kneeling on a guy until his heart stops is murder.  Abortion is nothing more than the removal of a parasite.  Like say a tapeworm or bot fly larva.

Why cant anybody accept the fact that abortion is murder?!  I just dont get it.

Im sorry, but I cant seem to "get over" the fact that there are people like you advocating for the death of innocent babies.  

With elections looming a lot of candidates are promising not to defund Planned Parenthood. Apparently it’s seen as a rite of passage for some politicians to make this pledge in order to preserve an organization that has essentially become a humane society for humans. Much like the Nazi machine presented its “Final Solution”, bureaucrats and macabre social engineers in the US tout Planned Parenthood as necessary to improve society. It’s generally agreed that Margaret Sanger, a proponent of eugenics that paralleled the philosophy of the Third Reich in the 1930’s was the founding principle of Planned Parenthood in the US.

 

The killing capacity of Planned Parenthood is on an industrial scale as it mass produces the extermination of human life so efficiently that the Nazis were rank amateurs by comparison. Like the Nazi architects who labeled Jews subhuman, Planned Parenthood calls developing babies fetuses in order to dehumanize the targets and proffer the policy to the people as decent and needed.  

 

If the aim is population composition through selective breeding as Margaret Sanger proposed, then the removal of the “unselected” becomes a necessary moderating process to achieve the greater good of a more perfect and culturally-managed human group. Predictably African Americans have become over represented in the killing fields of abortion on demand raising the specter of politically-directed ethnic cleansing or black genocide. The Jews of the 1930’s have been replaced by contemporary black US citizens in order to curtail their growth as a percentage of the American population.

 

The numbers don’t lie. Though black women comprise only 7.5% of the population, they make up 36% of the abortions in the US. Since 1973 scores of millions of Black babies have been dumped in the mass graves of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics nationwide.

 

People need to understand that the jawbones and eyeballs of the waste material created by the abortion process have DNA specific to an individual human and no other on Earth. Planned Parenthood is operating a holocaust on black Americans greater and more effectually dynamic than any other holocaust in human history.

 

If you see a candidate promising not to defund Planned Parenthood you need to take your vote and run the other way. Any organization that uses a strategy closer to the Third Reich than the US Constitution should not be endorsed by any serious political candidate. Black lives do matter. The American flag cannot be a swastika.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DemoMan said:

 

 

You never specified when "an abortion would not better than a c section in a medical emergency".

 

YOU:   you simply said a a partial birth abortion would be safer than a c section, 

 

I said abortions were safer than C-sections. Why is it that you are incapable of posting without distorting and lying about what was said?

 

YOU:  partial birth abortions take place from 7 months to full term. 

 

Can you support your claim that "an abortion would not better than a c section in a medical emergency", or can't you?

 

 

can you prove abortions are safer than c sections?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DemoMan said:

 

The difference, you endlessly lying tool, is that one is an adjective, and one is a noun.

 

YOU:    You try to use these abstractions and technicalities to try to make yourself sound like you have an intelligent argument, but the reality is nothing of the sort. 

 

That is neither an abstraction nor a technicality. They are different words, with different meanings, and your pathetically transparent and dishonest attempt to pretend they are the same has failed.  Cry and lie all you like.

 

YOU:     to try to make yourself sound like you have an intelligent argument, but the reality is nothing of the sort. 

 

You are being intentionally dishonest, and I have slapped you with it. Now you pout and whine.

 

YOU:    tell me the difference between "human" and "humans",

 

Are you referring to human, the NOUN, or human, the ADJECTIVE?  I'm sure you wouldn't want to get those all mixed up again!

:D :D :D 

 

YOU:    and this time, include a citation or some kind of fact that will support what you are saying,

 

LOLOL. You need a "citation" to explain to you that human, the noun, is different from human, the adjective?  Go ask a third grader to explain it to you, and stop demanding that I make up for your nonexistent hillbilly edumacation. 

 

YOU:    because you sound like you are off your schitz meds right now. It's time for a refill at your local pharmacy.

 

You are just SO MAD that your super duper clever lie to baffle those silly liberals has just been jammed right up your lying ass!!!!

That's hilarious.

So "human" is a noun and "humans" is an adjective?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DemoMan said:

 

The difference, you endlessly lying tool, is that one is an adjective, and one is a noun.

 

YOU:    You try to use these abstractions and technicalities to try to make yourself sound like you have an intelligent argument, but the reality is nothing of the sort. 

 

That is neither an abstraction nor a technicality. They are different words, with different meanings, and your pathetically transparent and dishonest attempt to pretend they are the same has failed.  Cry and lie all you like.

 

YOU:     to try to make yourself sound like you have an intelligent argument, but the reality is nothing of the sort. 

 

You are being intentionally dishonest, and I have slapped you with it. Now you pout and whine.

 

YOU:    tell me the difference between "human" and "humans",

 

Are you referring to human, the NOUN, or human, the ADJECTIVE?  I'm sure you wouldn't want to get those all mixed up again!

:D :D :D 

 

YOU:    and this time, include a citation or some kind of fact that will support what you are saying,

 

LOLOL. You need a "citation" to explain to you that human, the noun, is different from human, the adjective?  Go ask a third grader to explain it to you, and stop demanding that I make up for your nonexistent hillbilly edumacation. 

 

YOU:    because you sound like you are off your schitz meds right now. It's time for a refill at your local pharmacy.

 

You are just SO MAD that your super duper clever lie to baffle those silly liberals has just been jammed right up your lying ass!!!!

That's hilarious.

So when you were saying "there is no 'human' in the uterus", were you using a noun or an adjective?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jrobin15283 said:

So "human" is a noun and "humans" is an adjective?

No, there's a definite difference between saying that something Is human (i.e. posessing human DNA) and saying that something is "a human" (i.e. is a human being, a person, or a child).  The words "person" and "child" have a clear legal definition, a definition that has a qualifier of being "born alive."  While a fetus is indeed human (possesses human DNA), it is not a "person" or "child" at that stage of development.

 

Jerra seemed to be playing games with the words "human" (adjective) and "(a) human," trying to play some kind of semantics 'gotcha' with Demoman.  It didn't work.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RollingRock said:

No, there's a definite difference between saying that something Is human (i.e. posessing human DNA) and saying that something is "a human" (i.e. is a human being, a person, or a child).  The words "person" and "child" have a clear legal definition, a definition that has a qualifier of being "born alive."  While a fetus is indeed human (possesses human DNA), it is not a "person" or "child" at that stage of development.

 

Jerra seemed to be playing games with the words "human" (adjective) and "(a) human," trying to play some kind of semantics 'gotcha' with Demoman.  It didn't work.     

Democrats have no morals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

No, there's a definite difference between saying that something Is human (i.e. posessing human DNA) and saying that something is "a human" (i.e. is a human being, a person, or a child).  The words "person" and "child" have a clear legal definition, a definition that has a qualifier of being "born alive."  While a fetus is indeed human (possesses human DNA), it is not a "person" or "child" at that stage of development.

 

Jerra seemed to be playing games with the words "human" (adjective) and "(a) human," trying to play some kind of semantics 'gotcha' with Demoman.  It didn't work.     

There is NO difference.  A fetus is "a human".  It is "a" (singular article) human.  Nobody is playing "gotcha" except for you and demoman.  There is no source that you can find that will say that "a human" is any different than saying "human".  

 

And you still havent answered my question. 

 

I ask you if a woman should kill her baby

YOU no

ME should the abortion laws be expanded to allow abortions for babies who were just born?

YOU no

ME why not?

YOU because a fetus is not a human being

 

The fetus has nothing to do with my question.  Why shouldn't abortion laws be expanded to allow abortions for babies?  Try not to deflect this time.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jrobin15283 said:

There is NO difference.  A fetus is "a human".  It is "a" (singular article) human.  Nobody is playing "gotcha" except for you and demoman.  There is no source that you can find that will say that "a human" is any different than saying "human".  

Medical terminology says otherwise.  "Human," used as an adjective is far different from calling something "a human" (noun).  No, a fetus is NOT a human being....not until well into the third trimester (when the fetus is viable).   However a fetus does have human DNA and will likely develop into a human being if the woman chooses to carry to term. 

 

 

Quote

The fetus has nothing to do with my question.  Why shouldn't abortion laws be expanded to allow abortions for babies?  Try not to deflect this time.

I didn't deflect.  You apparently suffer from the same vocabulary void your pal Jerra does.  I didn't answer your question because it was patently absurd.  Here's my answer:   Babies are human beings at birth.  Murder statutes apply so, no, women shouldn't be able to murder newborns.   :huh:   What point are you trying to make with this 'killing toddlers' sidebar?   That's ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Medical terminology says otherwise.  "Human," used as an adjective is far different from calling something "a human" (noun).  No, a fetus is NOT a human being....not until well into the third trimester (when the fetus is viable).   However a fetus does have human DNA and will likely develop into a human being if the woman chooses to carry to term. 

 

 

I didn't deflect.  You apparently suffer from the same vocabulary void your pal Jerra does.  I didn't answer your question because it was patently absurd.  Here's my answer:   Babies are human beings at birth.  Murder statutes apply so, no, women shouldn't be able to murder newborns.   :huh:   What point are you trying to make with this 'killing toddlers' sidebar?   That's ridiculous.

I never called a fetus a human being.  Comprehension must be your handicap.  I am not here to argue whether or not abortion is legal or whether fetuses are human beings.  I have said this many times already: nobody has the right to take the life of an innocent human.  Why do you disagree?

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Medical terminology says otherwise.  "Human," used as an adjective is far different from calling something "a human" (noun).  No, a fetus is NOT a human being....not until well into the third trimester (when the fetus is viable).   However a fetus does have human DNA and will likely develop into a human being if the woman chooses to carry to term. 

 

 

I didn't deflect.  You apparently suffer from the same vocabulary void your pal Jerra does.  I didn't answer your question because it was patently absurd.  Here's my answer:   Babies are human beings at birth.  Murder statutes apply so, no, women shouldn't be able to murder newborns.   :huh:   What point are you trying to make with this 'killing toddlers' sidebar?   That's ridiculous.

Why do you think that viability is the threshold that a fetus must meet in order for it to have rights as any other human?  (And again, I dont need you to recite some legal precedent you looked up online.  I want to hear YOUR opinion.  I am not here to discuss the legality of abortion.  We all know that it is legal.  I want to discuss the morality of it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jrobin15283 said:

I never called a fetus a human being.  Comprehension must be your handicap.  I am not here to argue whether or not abortion is legal or whether fetuses are human beings.  I have said this many times already: nobody has the right to take the life of an innocent human.  Why do you disagree?

Because an early term fetus isn't "a human being."  It hasn't developed into a child/person yet.  With abortion, the fetus is occupying the body of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.  A woman's bodily autonomy and legal right of choice take precedent over any hypothetical "right" for pre-life to feed off a woman's bodily resources, putting her health at risk (when she doesn't want to be pregnant).  Pregnancy is a choice.  A woman is free to end her pregnancy if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Because an early term fetus isn't "a human being."  It hasn't developed into a child/person yet.  With abortion, the fetus is occupying the body of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.  A woman's bodily autonomy and legal right of choice take precedent over any hypothetical "right" for pre-life to feed off a woman's bodily resources, putting her health at risk (when she doesn't want to be pregnant).  Pregnancy is a choice.  A woman is free to end her pregnancy if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Demontards love killing little babies, they are cowards when they have to face a real man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RollingRock said:

Because an early term fetus isn't "a human being."  It hasn't developed into a child/person yet.  With abortion, the fetus is occupying the body of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.  A woman's bodily autonomy and legal right of choice take precedent over any hypothetical "right" for pre-life to feed off a woman's bodily resources, putting her health at risk (when she doesn't want to be pregnant).  Pregnancy is a choice.  A woman is free to end her pregnancy if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Again, you are talking about legal matters (child, personhood, etc).  I have already said that I am not arguing legality.  I am arguing morality.  If you are going to use the argument that a fetus uses a mothers resources, why makes it different if a born alive baby uses a mothers money, time,and her own breastmilk, etc and the mother wants to kill it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just revealed that Susan Collins, the Republican Senator from Maine who RollingRock voted for, pre-approved the choice of Brett Kavanaugh in conversations with Donald J Trump prior to his nomination.

 

Collins previously voted to confirm Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch, despite her awareness they would be hostile to reproductive choice.

 

Now Collins is a critical vote for Brett Kavanaugh, a Justice--who if confirmed--will swing the Supreme Court solidly to the right.

 

Nice going RollingRock, you've done it again.

 

How badly do you want to f*ck up this country with your stupidity???

 

Bill

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

It was just revealed that Susan Collins, the Republican Senator from Maine who RollingRock voted for, pre-approved the choice of Brett Kavanaugh in conversations with Donald J Trump prior to his nomination.

 

Collins previously voted to confirm Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch, despite her awareness they would be hostile to reproductive choice.

 

Now Collins is a critical vote for Brett Kavanaugh, a Justice--who if confirmed--will swing the Supreme Court solidly to the right.

 

Nice going RollingRock, you've done it again.

 

How badly do you want to f*ck up this country with your stupidity???

 

Bill

 

 

The baby you kill will not get reproductive choice, why are you such a coward baby killer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jrobin15283 said:

Again, you are talking about legal matters (child, personhood, etc).  I have already said that I am not arguing legality.  I am arguing morality.  If you are going to use the argument that a fetus uses a mothers resources, why makes it different if a born alive baby uses a mothers money, time,and her own breastmilk, etc and the mother wants to kill it?

Once a child is born, the woman has the ability through 'safe haven' laws, to drop her child off at a police station, hospital, etc. if she is overwhelmed or unable to care for the child.  While the fetus is still inside the mother's uterus, she has no such option.  You think a woman should be FORCED to gestate and give birth against her will.  I believe a woman should always have the right to remove the fetus from her body if she doesn't want it there.  The line in the sand for that procedure should stop (except in the event of medical emergency) at the point of fetal viability (at 22-24 weeks gestation).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Once a child is born, the woman has the ability through 'safe haven' laws, to drop her child off at a police station, hospital, etc. if she is overwhelmed or unable to care for the child.  While the fetus is still inside the mother's uterus, she has no such option.  You think a woman should be FORCED to gestate and give birth against her will.  I believe a woman should always have the right to remove the fetus from her body if she doesn't want it there.  The line in the sand for that procedure should stop (except in the event of medical emergency) at the point of fetal viability (at 22-24 weeks gestation).

You dont kill babies in the womb, when you become civilized enough to understand this , you wont be such a neanderthal and backwards thinker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RollingRock said:

Once a child is born, the woman has the ability through 'safe haven' laws, to drop her child off at a police station, hospital, etc. if she is overwhelmed or unable to care for the child.  While the fetus is still inside the mother's uterus, she has no such option.  You think a woman should be FORCED to gestate and give birth against her will.  I believe a woman should always have the right to remove the fetus from her body if she doesn't want it there.  The line in the sand for that procedure should stop (except in the event of medical emergency) at the point of fetal viability (at 22-24 weeks gestation).

You keep mentioning laws as if they answer my question.  Follow the bouncing ball, if you can.  I am asking WHY A WOMAN SHOULD NOT KILL HER BABY, not whether or not she should take advantage of the safe haven laws.  Try and focus.  Do not deflect this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jrobin15283 said:

Again, you are talking about legal matters (child, personhood, etc).  I have already said that I am not arguing legality.  I am arguing morality.  If you are going to use the argument that a fetus uses a mothers resources, why makes it different if a born alive baby uses a mothers money, time,and her own breastmilk, etc and the mother wants to kill it?

MORALITY

 

The question of morality is the question of the imposition of morality,

or,

the imposition of religious beliefs on another.

 

If the mother does not believe that abortion is immoral,

then she has done nothing immoral.

 

If someone else believes that abortion is immoral,

and attempts to stop the abortion,

the immoral act is the stopping of the abortion,

which is the imposition of one's religious beliefs on another person.

 

It is a freedom of religion issue, both morally and legally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...