• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Life at Conception

Steve Ja

Banned
Joined
Dec 25, 2013
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
206
Location
Kansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm sure there are numerous other posts regarding this, but I decided to post mine anyways. I believe life begins at conception and abortion is unacceptable under any circumstances, except when the mothers life is in danger. I consider it murder of an innocent life, that had no say in how it was conceived. The argument about it being the woman's body and it should be her choice makes me giggle often. She gets to make the decision on whether the baby lives or dies? As if it is only her this is affecting. The entire world is affected by abortions. The next cure, the next big discovery etc etc might be killed with that abortion. some make it seem like the ability to bring life into this world is such a burden. I wish I had the capabilities to get pregnant. A wonderful gift that only women were given. But that does not mean they should also have the right to kill off babies before they are born. Nobody should be given that authority, except nature. Nature will determine if the baby is viable or not.

What are your thoughts on this touchy subject
 
I believe life begins at conception and abortion is unacceptable under any circumstances, except when the mothers life is in danger.
Here's the key part. You believe.

That's fine that you believe this. It's a belief that many other people share, and that's OK too, even if I personally disagree with them. However, it's just that - a belief. And one that is far from unanimous around the world, or within a country like the US, or even within a certain community, like the scientific community, or the Christian community. You are perfectly free to act on your belief; or even to convince other people that your belief is correct. However, you are not free to force other people with different beliefs to act by your personal rules.

If you think abortion is wrong, that's fine. Don't have one. But don't try and force that decision onto anyone else.
 
Here's the key part. You believe.

That's fine that you believe this. It's a belief that many other people share, and that's OK too, even if I personally disagree with them. However, it's just that - a belief. And one that is far from unanimous around the world, or within a country like the US, or even within a certain community, like the scientific community, or the Christian community. You are perfectly free to act on your belief; or even to convince other people that your belief is correct. However, you are not free to force other people with different beliefs to act by your personal rules.

If you think abortion is wrong, that's fine. Don't have one. But don't try and force that decision onto anyone else.

Yet you're perfectly fine with having your belief forced on someone else, in the form of allowing an innocent human being to be murdered in the name of that belief.
 
Here's the key part. You believe.

That's fine that you believe this. It's a belief that many other people share, and that's OK too, even if I personally disagree with them. However, it's just that - a belief. And one that is far from unanimous around the world, or within a country like the US, or even within a certain community, like the scientific community, or the Christian community. You are perfectly free to act on your belief; or even to convince other people that your belief is correct. However, you are not free to force other people with different beliefs to act by your personal rules.
If you think abortion is wrong, that's fine. Don't have one. But don't try and force that decision onto anyone else.

Where am I forcing anything? I'm expressing my views. Also if I should not force anyone to follow my beliefs, why am I forced to support abortion with my tax dollars and others that feel the same as me forced to as well? And if I can change one mind on the subject I will consider myself successful. I'm not a nut job looking to bash people. I merely want to express myself and have honest debates on the issues of today.
Appreciate your thoughts and views as well. I like to hear all sides.. I also have a blog that is longer then this on this subject and am creating more blogs on a wide range of subjects.
 
Yet you're perfectly fine with having your belief forced on someone else, in the form of allowing an innocent human being to be murdered in the name of that belief.
Well, that kinda begs the question. If I'm right then no, if you're right then yes. Your argument only works if you accept the premise, which anyone who disagrees with your argument will not - in other words, this is nice rhetoric for pro-lifers to urge each other on with but makes no difference whatsoever to the pro-choice side.

Where am I forcing anything? I'm expressing my views. Also if I should not force anyone to follow my beliefs, why am I forced to support abortion with my tax dollars and others that feel the same as me forced to as well? And if I can change one mind on the subject I will consider myself successful. I'm not a nut job looking to bash people. I merely want to express myself and have honest debates on the issues of today.
Appreciate your thoughts and views as well. I like to hear all sides.. I also have a blog that is longer then this on this subject and am creating more blogs on a wide range of subjects.
I was expressing my views, as well. I have no desire to make people have abortions, but I also don't have any problem if they do - and I do have a problem with people trying to force their beliefs onto others. As for your tax dollars - I doubt that any government spends it's tax revenue in a way designed to please any one individual in particular. A government (without taking the overly cynical view) spends it's money to try and benefit the populace as a whole, and I would argue that the benefits of allowing women access to reproductive health care vastly outweighs the cost of annoying the people who don't care for that sort of thing - not to mention that the alternative to state-provided abortion access is not a pretty one in terms of poverty levels and child abuse/neglect.

I did realise though that I didn't really give my reasons for not minding if people have an abortion. A short version is as follows:

IMO, a zygote/embryo/foetus is not a 'person' - that is, an individual entity in it's own right, deserving of legal protection - until the 20-24 week period, at which point abortion becomes increasingly morally grey. I believe this because at this point, the developing foetus first develops the ability to process sensory data; even though the nerves can (and do!) fire before this point, there is nothing that has the possibility of being aware of those signals. To me, it is our awareness that makes us people rather than mere bodies - I don't have time to go into much more detail now, but a nice argument supporting this is to compare Lakshmi Tatma with Abby and Brittany Hensel. There are all sorts of similarities, but the difference is that Lakshmi is one person, whereas Abi and Brittany are two; because they have two sets of awarenesses, whereas Lakshmi only has the one.
 
Well, that kinda begs the question. If I'm right then no, if you're right then yes. Your argument only works if you accept the premise, which anyone who disagrees with your argument will not - in other words, this is nice rhetoric for pro-lifers to urge each other on with but makes no difference whatsoever to the pro-choice side.

I was expressing my views, as well. I have no desire to make people have abortions, but I also don't have any problem if they do - and I do have a problem with people trying to force their beliefs onto others. As for your tax dollars - I doubt that any government spends it's tax revenue in a way designed to please any one individual in particular. A government (without taking the overly cynical view) spends it's money to try and benefit the populace as a whole, and I would argue that the benefits of allowing women access to reproductive health care vastly outweighs the cost of annoying the people who don't care for that sort of thing - not to mention that the alternative to state-provided abortion access is not a pretty one in terms of poverty levels and child abuse/neglect.

I did realise though that I didn't really give my reasons for not minding if people have an abortion. A short version is as follows:

IMO, a zygote/embryo/foetus is not a 'person' - that is, an individual entity in it's own right, deserving of legal protection - until the 20-24 week period, at which point abortion becomes increasingly morally grey. I believe this because at this point, the developing foetus first develops the ability to process sensory data; even though the nerves can (and do!) fire before this point, there is nothing that has the possibility of being aware of those signals. To me, it is our awareness that makes us people rather than mere bodies - I don't have time to go into much more detail now, but a nice argument supporting this is to compare Lakshmi Tatma with Abby and Brittany Hensel. There are all sorts of similarities, but the difference is that Lakshmi is one person, whereas Abi and Brittany are two; because they have two sets of awarenesses, whereas Lakshmi only has the one.
I would like to take argument even further if you are for abortion. The embryo fetus whatever you wish to call it develops a beating heart around day 22 which in a lot of circles is the first sign of a living human being, again correct me if I'm wrong. so after 3 weeks and 1 day that can be considered a human being. I still consider it human at day 0. also as you mentioned nerves are fully developed far earlier then week 20 its actually around week 12 and also the baby is almost completely developed by this stage, though life outside the womb is highly unlikely. Which means the baby can feel pain at week 12. Making murdering the baby not only murder but cruel and unusual punishment. I know you mention sensory data at week 20, but can you prove the baby feels no pain after 12 weeks? I can prove that its alive at day 0, the cells are multiplying and it is indeed a human being, just ebcuae it doesn't look like one, or scientifically classified as one.
I enjoy reading your responses, its healthy to discuss these issues in a peaceful way. Both of us know it wont change our minds, but it gets ideas out in the open for others to read and make decisions if perhaps they are undecided
 
I would like to take argument even further if you are for abortion. The embryo fetus whatever you wish to call it develops a beating heart around day 22 which in a lot of circles is the first sign of a living human being, again correct me if I'm wrong. so after 3 weeks and 1 day that can be considered a human being. I still consider it human at day 0. also as you mentioned nerves are fully developed far earlier then week 20 its actually around week 12 and also the baby is almost completely developed by this stage, though life outside the womb is highly unlikely. Which means the baby can feel pain at week 12. Making murdering the baby not only murder but cruel and unusual punishment. I know you mention sensory data at week 20, but can you prove the baby feels no pain after 12 weeks? I can prove that its alive at day 0, the cells are multiplying and it is indeed a human being, just ebcuae it doesn't look like one, or scientifically classified as one.
I enjoy reading your responses, its healthy to discuss these issues in a peaceful way. Both of us know it wont change our minds, but it gets ideas out in the open for others to read and make decisions if perhaps they are undecided
Sorry, but there's a lot here which is straight-up false.

1) You said "At week 12 the baby is almost completely developed, although life outside the womb is highly unlikely". This is false. At week twelve, the foetus is about three inches long, probably less. It's skeletal structure is more like rubber than bone, it's skin is mostly transparent. It doesn't have a functioning liver, pancreas, or even external gentalia (yet - assuming it will become a boy!). It doesn't have eyelashes, fingernails, or a functional nervous system. And since the earliest recorded survivor of premature birth I can find was born almost 22 weeks into pregnancy, life outside the womb at 12 weeks is entirely impossible, given current medicine.

2) You said "The baby can feel pain at week 12". This is false. There have been a lot of pseudoscientific reports that claim otherwise, but the evidence-based science is still there: there is no evidence of foetal pain before the third trimester. Most of the pseudoscience uses a drastically altered definition of 'pain' in order to try and warp perceptions; such as reflex reactions. However, the hard fact is that the foetal brain does not even lay down the chemical pathways necessary to interpret sensory data until week 20-24; and it is through those pathways that the nervous system signals are interpreted as 'pain'. Without that, there is just a bunch of electrochemical impulses in a partially formed set of nerves with no-where to go.

3) Finally, you misunderstand the debate, which is quite common amongst pro-lifers I've come across. No-one is denying that the newly fertilised egg is alive. However, what I am challenging is that the newly fertilised egg, on day 0, is an individual organism in it's own right. You body is composed of billions of individual alive cells, growing and multiplying, but you do not consider them to be human beings. The abortion debate is never about "when does life begin", it (or at least, this part of it) is about "when is a developing foetus considered as an individual, rather than as a collection of living human cells?". As to that, I would use viability as my line in the sand. Viability is when a foetus is capable of independent existence, which is essential for being a biologically individual organism. It's what distinguish human cells from human organisms; they can survive on their own (biologically speaking). Viability happens - just like awareness - at the 20-24 week area of development. Not too surprising, since the brain is responsible for controlling chemical changes in the body which keep us alive (homeostasis) so before the brain is developed enough, the woman's body has to help out with the job instead.

EDIT: Incidentally, it's nice to read your responses too. It's good to see someone who is more interested in discussing ideas than stirring up emotional responses. I look forwards to reading your blog post.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but there's a lot here which is straight-up false.

1) You said "At week 12 the baby is almost completely developed, although life outside the womb is highly unlikely". This is false. At week twelve, the foetus is about three inches long, probably less. It's skeletal structure is more like rubber than bone, it's skin is mostly transparent. It doesn't have a functioning liver, pancreas, or even external gentalia (yet - assuming it will become a boy!). It doesn't have eyelashes, fingernails, or a functional nervous system. And since the earliest recorded survivor of premature birth I can find was born almost 22 weeks into pregnancy, life outside the womb at 12 weeks is entirely impossible, given current medicine.

2) You said "The baby can feel pain at week 12". This is false. There have been a lot of pseudoscientific reports that claim otherwise, but the evidence-based science is still there: there is no evidence of foetal pain before the third trimester. Most of the pseudoscience uses a drastically altered definition of 'pain' in order to try and warp perceptions; such as reflex reactions. However, the hard fact is that the foetal brain does not even lay down the chemical pathways necessary to interpret sensory data until week 20-24; and it is through those pathways that the nervous system signals are interpreted as 'pain'. Without that, there is just a bunch of electrochemical impulses in a partially formed set of nerves with no-where to go.

3) Finally, you misunderstand the debate, which is quite common amongst pro-lifers I've come across. No-one is denying that the newly fertilised egg is alive. However, what I am challenging is that the newly fertilised egg, on day 0, is an individual organism in it's own right. You body is composed of billions of individual alive cells, growing and multiplying, but you do not consider them to be human beings. The abortion debate is never about "when does life begin", it (or at least, this part of it) is about "when is a developing foetus considered as an individual, rather than as a collection of living human cells?". As to that, I would use viability as my line in the sand. Viability is when a foetus is capable of independent existence, which is essential for being a biologically individual organism. It's what distinguish human cells from human organisms; they can survive on their own (biologically speaking). Viability happens - just like awareness - at the 20-24 week area of development. Not too surprising, since the brain is responsible for controlling chemical changes in the body which keep us alive (homeostasis) so before the brain is developed enough, the woman's body has to help out with the job instead.

EDIT: Incidentally, it's nice to read your responses too. It's good to see someone who is more interested in discussing ideas than stirring up emotional responses. I look forwards to reading your blog post.
Great Response. I like to argue that it is an argument at least for me about when life begins, or more precisely human life. That life is a human being at conception, or part of one if you want to break it down further as you have, you even said human cells. Only it's not like an arm or finger, or even skin which will not develop into an actual human being. It is in fact developing into a complete human being and aborting it is preventing a human being form being born and in fact killing a human being. The 12 week and 22 day stuff are things i got from others, I am in no way an expert on the development of babies inside the womb, nor is it really a basis of any argument i have on being against abortion at all stages. I do believe it is in fact a human baby at every step of the way and deserves the right to live just as you and I do. That is my argument. Viable outside the womb is irrelevant as there are human beings living outside the womb that without the help of machines, or heavy drugs would die. A tangent yes, but still an argument.

I look forward to your future responses
 
I'm sure there are numerous other posts regarding this, but I decided to post mine anyways. I believe life begins at conception and abortion is unacceptable under any circumstances, except when the mothers life is in danger. I consider it murder of an innocent life, that had no say in how it was conceived. The argument about it being the woman's body and it should be her choice makes me giggle often. She gets to make the decision on whether the baby lives or dies? As if it is only her this is affecting. The entire world is affected by abortions. The next cure, the next big discovery etc etc might be killed with that abortion. some make it seem like the ability to bring life into this world is such a burden. I wish I had the capabilities to get pregnant. A wonderful gift that only women were given. But that does not mean they should also have the right to kill off babies before they are born. Nobody should be given that authority, except nature. Nature will determine if the baby is viable or not.

What are your thoughts on this touchy subject

Can you define "conception"?
 
Yet you're perfectly fine with having your belief forced on someone else, in the form of allowing an innocent human being to be murdered in the name of that belief.

Well Bob - let's not forget that it doesn't actually affect you. No matter how you feel, emotionally, it has zero impact on your life, your livelihood, your physiological self and yourself, psychologically.

Unlike your view - which, if you had your way, would affect every mother and father out there.

Talk about forcing beliefs on people.

When the egg gets fertilized

Before implantation even? My that's mighty stringent. Sperm meets eggs = instant human? No, it doesn't work like that.

Growth and development happen in steps and, naturally, often those steps are never fully actualized. Anyone who tries to insist otherwise is ignorant.

There's much more to the topic of having children and the conflict of abortion than the basic concept of a life.
 
Yet you're perfectly fine with having your belief forced on someone else, in the form of allowing an innocent human being to be murdered in the name of that belief.

I've already explained dozens of times already how a unborn human doesn't count as ''innocent'' in anyway.
 
Well Bob - let's not forget that it doesn't actually affect you. No matter how you feel, emotionally, it has zero impact on your life, your livelihood, your physiological self and yourself, psychologically.

Unlike your view - which, if you had your way, would affect every mother and father out there.

Talk about forcing beliefs on people.



Before implantation even? My that's mighty stringent. Sperm meets eggs = instant human? No, it doesn't work like that.

Growth and development happen in steps and, naturally, often those steps are never fully actualized. Anyone who tries to insist otherwise is ignorant.

There's much more to the topic of having children and the conflict of abortion than the basic concept of a life.
Actually it is that simple. And its not just a life, but a human life. Sperm meets egg and wham human development begins. Denying that is Ignorant too wouldn't you say? I really hope you are not calling me ignorant as I am aware that there are stages of development, HUMAN development. Its not stringent it's a fact. Its not developing into anything else, other then a human being. Abortion stops that development and kills a human being whether it be 2 cells 4 cells or 4 billion cells into it.
 
I've already explained dozens of times already how a unborn human doesn't count as ''innocent'' in anyway.
Guiilty of being the chosen one to be developed outside that, can you explain? I have not read your other posts
 
Actually it is that simple. And its not just a life, but a human life. Sperm meets egg and wham human development begins. Denying that is Ignorant too wouldn't you say? I really hope you are not calling me ignorant as I am aware that there are stages of development, HUMAN development. Its not stringent it's a fact. Its not developing into anything else, other then a human being. Abortion stops that development and kills a human being whether it be 2 cells 4 cells or 4 billion cells into it.

Rights are granted and gained as we progress from one form of development to another - and that includes the inalienable rights. If you don't see that rights are progressive with human development then, yes, you are being ignorant.

The abortion issue isn't about 'when life begins' anyway. Because if you want to get 'true to reality' - life doesn't end, it just shifts from one form to another. Life is - and then it's altered when the sperm and egg join - and it's altered again when implantation occurs . . . and on and on.

You're one chemical process and an orgasm - one step - away from arguing that a sperm and an egg have inalienable rights - you do realize that, don't you?

I simply cannot consider a barely developing embryo to be on the same level - rights and otherwise - as my children when I was 8 months pregnant and later when they were 8 months old. Seriously - it's illogical.

Why people believe otherwise is a mystery to me.
 
Well Bob - let's not forget that it doesn't actually affect you. No matter how you feel, emotionally, it has zero impact on your life, your livelihood, your physiological self and yourself, psychologically.

Unlike your view - which, if you had your way, would affect every mother and father out there.

Talk about forcing beliefs on people.



Before implantation even? My that's mighty stringent. Sperm meets eggs = instant human? No, it doesn't work like that.

Growth and development happen in steps and, naturally, often those steps are never fully actualized. Anyone who tries to insist otherwise is ignorant.

There's much more to the topic of having children and the conflict of abortion than the basic concept of a life.
Now to reply to the first part. Abortions affect all mothers and fathers too. Mother, father, and everyone else. That baby could be a world leader, a doctor, teacher, police officer. Huge impact on the entire world. Everyone gets affected when that life does not have a chance to reach its potential.
 
Now to reply to the first part. Abortions affect all mothers and fathers too. Mother, father, and everyone else. That baby could be a world leader, a doctor, teacher, police officer. Huge impact on the entire world. Everyone gets affected when that life does not have a chance to reach its potential.

Oh dear god spare me - the 'maybe could have' argument? Well I could get silly and do something dumb like 'well maybe it could have become the antichrist' (see how ridiculous that is?)

Your life is not altered in any regard when someone you don't know has an abortion - or when someone has a miscarriage. Right now - I bet you it just happened . . . and again! There it happened again.

Is your life different now?

No.

You know whose life is different? The woman who's pregnant - and single . . . her life is forever changed. Or the mother who just delivered her 5th child. Her life is forever changed.

The MOMENT a woman discovers she's pregnant - her body and her life is forever changed. Maybe the father's life is forever changed if he's involved in the mother or the child's life to any degree.

Let's get real here and focus on FACTS and tangible elements - the maybes and the coulds and the woulds and the shoulds make for philosophical discussion and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear god spare me - the 'maybe could have' argument? Well I could get silly and do something dumb like 'well maybe it could have become the antichrist' (see how ridiculous that is?)

Your life is not altered in any regard when someone you don't know has an abortion - or when someone has a miscarriage. Right now - I bet you it just happened . . . and again! There it happened again.

Is your life different now?

No.

You know whose life is different? The woman who's pregnant - and single . . . her life is forever changed. Or the mother who just delivered her 5th child. Her life is forever changed.

The MOMENT a woman discovers she's pregnant - her body and her life is forever changed. Maybe the father's life is forever changed if he's involved in the mother or the child's life to any degree.

Let's get real here and focus on FACTS and tangible elements - the maybes and the coulds and the woulds and the shoulds make for philosophical discussion and nothing more.
Justifying murder of innocent babies with oh poor me stories whatever is a single woman to do? Please spare me. Have the child and be responsible like countless others have.
 
Rights are granted and gained as we progress from one form of development to another - and that includes the inalienable rights. If you don't see that rights are progressive with human development then, yes, you are being ignorant.

The abortion issue isn't about 'when life begins' anyway. Because if you want to get 'true to reality' - life doesn't end, it just shifts from one form to another. Life is - and then it's altered when the sperm and egg join - and it's altered again when implantation occurs . . . and on and on.

You're one chemical process and an orgasm - one step - away from arguing that a sperm and an egg have inalienable rights - you do realize that, don't you?

I simply cannot consider a barely developing embryo to be on the same level - rights and otherwise - as my children when I was 8 months pregnant and later when they were 8 months old. Seriously - it's illogical.

Why people believe otherwise is a mystery to me.
LOL funny how you try to compare ovulation and ejaculation to the developing baby inside a woman. It is developing into a human being after fertilization, and deserves the chance at life before that it is simply an egg and sperm. Yes one step and wham the whole thing changes. That life deserves a voice. I will be that voice.
 
Justifying murder of innocent babies with oh poor me stories whatever is a single woman to do? Please spare me. Have the child and be responsible like countless others have.

You're saying you don't care about the life of the mother? A woman finds she's pregnant and chooses to have the child (the very thing you are arguing FOR) and you say you don't care about her story? Her LIFE at all?

You just flushed your view. Hypocrite.

If you're a proponent of life you really need to understand and accept the outcome of said view. The mother MATTERS - she matters quite a lot.
 
Justifying murder of innocent babies with oh poor me stories whatever is a single woman to do? Please spare me. Have the child and be responsible like countless others have.

And on is my life different now? You are narrow thinking. Wham another abortion, another hope and cure gone, wham another wham another. Yes my life and everyone else s life will never realize that potential. can twist it into oh poor woman who has to bear the burden of giving life into this world. that's a gift that should not justify murdering babies. I will call it a baby, a human baby because that's exactly what it is. A human baby. A human baby whose life is affected and in fact terminated by the selfish decision of another person. It is selfish to think of only yourself when deciding an abortion. No care to the life inside, or the future positive effects that life can have on society, if allowed to. Sure negatives can happen, but if you only argue that, then you and I, or any other human for that matter should never have been born correct?
 
And on is my life different now? You are narrow thinking. Wham another abortion, another hope and cure gone, wham another wham another. Yes my life and everyone else s life will never realize that potential. can twist it into oh poor woman who has to bear the burden of giving life into this world. that's a gift that should not justify murdering babies. I will call it a baby, a human baby because that's exactly what it is. A human baby. A human baby whose life is affected and in fact terminated by the selfish decision of another person. It is selfish to think of only yourself when deciding an abortion. No care to the life inside, or the future positive effects that life can have on society, if allowed to. Sure negatives can happen, but if you only argue that, then you and I, or any other human for that matter should never have been born correct?

Maybe you should examine the statements you've made in this thread and decide what you REALLY FEEL.

You cannot say "I'M 100% PRO LIFE" and then run single mothers into the ground because they CHOSE TO HAVE THE CHILDREN THEY WERE PREGNANT WITH.

Make up your goddamned mind.

I'll show you how it's done.

I: Fully support single and unwed mothers who have chosen to either keep their children and raise them, or marry the father, or give the child up for adoption (whatever they felt was the right thing to do) . . . and I support the right to choose abortion as well.


- No hypocrisy. I don't pretend to be the purveyor of justices and then run someone into the ground because their choices in life weren't quite ideal.
 
You're saying you don't care about the life of the mother? A woman finds she's pregnant and chooses to have the child (the very thing you are arguing FOR) and you say you don't care about her story? Her LIFE at all?

You just flushed your view. Hypocrite.

If you're a proponent of life you really need to understand and accept the outcome of said view. The mother MATTERS - she matters quite a lot.

I knew you'd try twisting that. The mother matters, of course but not to the point that she can choose murder of a baby, just to avoid *consequences* of pregnancy Justifying the murder of innocent babies by saying oh the toll on the body and her life is forever altered. Um abortions take their toll on the body too and living with the fact knowing you killed a baby is something she will have to live with forever. No take backs on murdering babies.
And I'm not a proponent of all life, I'm a proponent of innocent life and giving all life a chance at living. Keep twisting my views into something they are not, will get you nowhere.
 
I knew you'd try twisting that. The mother matters, of course but not to the point that she can choose murder of a baby, just to avoid *consequences* of pregnancy Justifying the murder of innocent babies by saying oh the toll on the body and her life is forever altered. Um abortions take their toll on the body too and living with the fact knowing you killed a baby is something she will have to live with forever. No take backs on murdering babies.
And I'm not a proponent of all life, I'm a proponent of innocent life and giving all life a chance at living. Keep twisting my views into something they are not, will get you nowhere.

No - I don't get the feeling that you actually believe the mother matters.

If she's single, had sex, got pregnant, and chose to keep the baby - it's quite clear you hold her in a lower opinion.

/ End another ridiculous 100% pro-life thread from someone who refuses to accept what that means.
 
Maybe you should examine the statements you've made in this thread and decide what you REALLY FEEL.

You cannot say "I'M 100% PRO LIFE" and then run single mothers into the ground because they CHOSE TO HAVE THE CHILDREN THEY WERE PREGNANT WITH.

Make up your goddamned mind.

I'll show you how it's done.

I: Fully support single and unwed mothers who have chosen to either keep their children and raise them, or marry the father, or give the child up for adoption (whatever they felt was the right thing to do) . . . and I support the right to choose abortion as well.


- No hypocrisy. I don't pretend to be the purveyor of justices and then run someone into the ground because their choices in life weren't quite ideal.

you twist the pro-life thing entirely don't you. Maybe I should have been more specific. I'm anti baby killing. I am not pro life when it comes to murderers and rapists. The mother matters yes, but she should have zero right to decide the future of the human race through abortion. Every life should get its fair chance as you and i have. And where do I run single mothers into the ground, or married ones for that matter. I simply say abortions should be illegal and you go off on some random tangent to take away from the real issue. MURDERING BABIES
 
Back
Top Bottom