The $$ Costs if all abortions stopped

[joko104]

Well the potential to survive is different than the potential for personhood. The fetus is rapidly developing towards personhood provided that the mother doesn't kill it.

So what? A person cell is rapidly racing towards personhood unless it is stopped to. BAN CONDOMS - mean you use them KILL personhood!

 

[Libertas-Mors]

So what? A person cell is rapidly racing towards personhood unless it is stopped to. BAN CONDOMS - mean you use them KILL personhood!

No it doesn't that's fallacious. Preventing the sperm from attaching to the egg never allows the process to begin rather than ending it after it has begun.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

True, while claiming there is no difference, in fact there is. If the woman dies, so does the fetus without (rarely possible medical intervention. HOWEVER, Liberta-Mors denies that and claims that biologically there is no difference between a fetus and a born baby - so in his slogan-land of NO even pretending there is any reality to it - of course he also believes if the woman died the fetus just continues to live on anyway.

And, of course, after birth he's fine with the child then dying - rather maybe costing him some tax money and time. And that is the morality and concern of children in his slogan-land of him as mangod-master over women.

Listen buddy there is no difference between a 7 month old in the womb and a 7 month old outside of the womb. That's called a fact
Not a "slogan."

 

[joko104]

No it doesn't that's fallacious. Preventing the sperm from attaching to the egg never allows the process to begin rather than ending it after it has begun.

Absurd. The sperm and the egg are the beginning of the process. Oh I do understand why you want to present bizzarro biology to exempt yourself from any restrictions or being forced to father a child. Total hypocrisy on junk philosophy.

 

[joko104]

Listen buddy there is no difference between a 7 month old in the womb and a 7 month old outside of the womb. That's called a fact
Not a "slogan."

No, that is called a lie. Not one rationally lay person no medical personnel would see your statement as just pro-life fantacism and overall absurd.

Stop pretending you care about children or explain your plan to care for 20,000,000 abandoned children including millions with severe birth defects.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

No, that is called a lie. Not one rationally lay person no medical personnel would see your statement as just pro-life fantacism and overall absurd.

Oh really? Tell me more......

Explain the mind-blowing difference that I am missing out on.

Stop pretending that you support kids when you advocate for the 'choice' to kill a fully developed child In the womb.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

No, that is called a lie. Not one rationally lay person no medical personnel would see your statement as just pro-life fantacism and overall absurd.

Stop pretending you care about children or explain your plan to care for 20,000,000 abandoned children including millions with severe birth defects.

Holy chit. I already told you that I advocate for states rights to restrict abortion at the end of the first trimester, not from conception. That's prob like 5% of all abortions.

 

[joko104]

PRO-LIFE TEACHING WHERE BABIES COME FROM:

"Sometime after a girl is about 12 or 13 years old, suddenly and magically there is a baby so tiny it takes a microscope to see it. It grows in her for about 9 months and then comes out.

The most famous is a woman named Mary who had a baby named Jesus. You probably heard of him. God just magically put a baby in her. That is where all babies come from. It starts with a tiny little baby just appearing in the female."

THAT is Pro-life's "biological fact."


Truly ludicrous.

 

[joko104]

Oh really? Tell me more......

Explain the mind-blowing difference that I am missing out on.

Stop pretending that you support kids when you advocate for the 'choice' to kill a fully developed child In the womb.

I don't "advocate" for that at all. I've posted - and directly to you too - that I would agree to your 3 month trimester limit as within allowed social restraints UNLESS the mother's life is imminently in danger OR if it known there a truly severe birth defect. What of that do you disagree?

But you are arguing pro-life in principle, and I am arguing pro-choice in principle (and also presenting my own view too.)

IF there is no difference between a 7 month fetus and 7 month born baby, then obviously the woman can have it removed from her by chemically induced labor or C-Section - right? As soon as there "is no difference" she can have it removed in a way that doesn't "kill it." You agree, correct? Why not just do that routinely? A smaller fetus/baby is MUCH safer to the woman to go thru labor with and elminates 2 months of possible lethal complications in the womb.

What about 6 months? 5 months? When is the fetus "no different" from a breathing, born baby? At that point, there is no reason then to prohibit the woman from having it removed provided the removal process doesn't "kill" it.

And the word game of "child in the womb" is just tiresome. It is a fetus. That is the medical term. You calling it a "child" changes nothing nor adds any "fact" weight at all.

 

[ksu_aviator]

1. Do you have a uterus?

2. Do you believe abortion should be illegal?

If you answered no and yes respectively, then you ARE a person without a uterus who believes women should be forced by law to gestate against their will.

LMAO...you have to be kidding.

1. It is sexist to believe that only women can be the determiners of rights for children.
2. Yes.
3. 99% of abortions are not for rape and incest. So, unless the woman falls into that 1%, she probably had sex willingly and (unless she's totally retarded) she knew that could result in pregnancy. Which means she can't possibly be pregnant against her will. She may not like it, but her decisions led to her circumstances.

So, now that we've obliterated the idea that a uterus has anything to do with rights and that she would be forced to be pregnant, what other excuse do you have for killing children out of convenience?

 

[X Factor]

Holy chit. I already told you that I advocate for states rights to restrict abortion at the end of the first trimester, not from conception. That's prob like 5% of all abortions.

You are wasting your time. He's not arguing with you or even able to understand you. He has some bizarre argument going on in his head that he's acting out where he hears things that were never said.

 

[X Factor]

I don't "advocate" for that at all. I've posted - and directly to you too - that I would agree to your 3 month trimester limit as within allowed social restraints UNLESS the mother's life is imminently in danger OR if it known there a truly severe birth defect. What of that do you disagree?

But you are arguing pro-life in principle, and I am arguing pro-choice in principle (and also presenting my own view too.)

IF there is no difference between a 7 month fetus and 7 month born baby, then obviously the woman can have it removed from her by chemically induced labor or C-Section - right? As soon as there "is no difference" she can have it removed in a way that doesn't "kill it." You agree, correct? Why not just do that routinely? A smaller fetus/baby is MUCH safer to the woman to go thru labor with and elminates 2 months of possible lethal complications in the womb.

What about 6 months? 5 months? When is the fetus "no different" from a breathing, born baby? At that point, there is no reason then to prohibit the woman from having it removed provided the removal process doesn't "kill" it.

And the word game of "child in the womb" is just tiresome. It is a fetus. That is the medical term. You calling it a "child" changes nothing nor adds any "fact" weight at all.

You're one sick puppy. I've never seen anyone enjoy the thought of doing violence to a premature baby. I'll be sure to let my pregnant friend who's likely to deliver early that her baby, which she's already named, is not actually a baby and all those sonogram pictures she insists on showing me are actually of nothing more than a cancerous mass that should be discarded if he's (it's a boy) early.

 

[X Factor]

No it doesn't that's fallacious. Preventing the sperm from attaching to the egg never allows the process to begin rather than ending it after it has begun.

That's waaaaay over his head.

 

[ecofarm]

I'll be sure to let my pregnant friend who's likely to deliver early that her baby, which she's already named, is not actually a baby and all those sonogram pictures she insists on showing me are actually of nothing more than a cancerous mass that should be discarded if he's (it's a boy) early.

Don't forget to mention it's a parasite.

 

[X Factor]

Don't forget to mention it's a parasite.

I won't. Do you know my friend has actually taken steps to make sure the thing in her stomach actually stays in as long as possible and stays alive? I guess the silly bitch doesn't know that there's really nothing worth preserving in there.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Since you have NO plan of how to provide for the children, you do want capital punishment of innocent and defenseless newborns by starvation and exposure.

I actually do have a plan. Your assumptions of starvation and exposure are vastly over exaggerated.

I suppose the distinction and why you are fine them dying is because after birth they have a "voice." Maybe crying gets on your nerves and death certainly would end that crying. So... why does your heart disapprove of fetal death but not newborn babies deaths?

Where the hell did you come up with that?

What is YOUR plan for providing for the needs of the endless millions upon millions of endlessly more unwanted and abandoned babies you want to be born?

Ultimately, the parents are responsible for their actions. They should make every attempt to raise the children they create. If they are not interested, there are approximately 1.2 million people/couples trying to adopt. With only roughly 50,000 adoptions actually taking place in any given year, there is a huge surplus of adoptive parents waiting to take custody of a needy child.

More importantly, there needs to be much better education about contraceptives. If a fertile couple has sex regularly (once a week or more), while using "the pill" and condoms congruently, they will get pregnant in a five year time span. Not, there is a good chance. Not, they might get pregnant. Using a condom and the pill at the same time WILL GET YOU PREGNANT AT SOME POINT OVER FIVE YEARS. Most people think that isn't true. But the reality is, a 99% effective rate over 100 times gets you pregnant 1 every 100 times. Once a week for 5 years gives you 260 chances and more than likely 2 pregnancies, 1 for sure.

That means, women, if you don't want to have a baby, hook your man up with a nice BJ or HJ. He'll thank you for it.


But, again, the plan isn't even germane to the discussion. Born or not, we have an inherent right to life and our founding fathers articulated that that right at begins at creation, not birth.

 

[vendur]

The idea that abuse and neglect would INCREASE is the article's point.

Maybe we should start carpet bombing large swaths of poverty stricken africa /asia/south america?

For the children!

 

[ecofarm]

I won't. Do you know my friend has actually taken steps to make sure the thing in her stomach actually stays in as long as possible and stays alive? I guess the silly bitch doesn't know that there's really nothing worth preserving in there.

The reckless endangerment of oneself, pure lunacy. Some people will do anything.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

Maybe we should start carpet bombing large swaths of poverty stricken africa /asia/south america?

For the children!

It's only the humane thing to do lol.

 

[choiceone]

I know women will put their fangs into people when they do them wrong, but holy ****, this crap is ridulous. We have women wanting pro life women to be raped, we have women that want them to be pregnant as often as humanly possible, we have women that want them to die in child birth, and it just goes on and on and on. I'm just a bit speechless from all this I have learned over the past few weeks.

:damn

I have no doubt that pro-choice women, of which I am one, would want pro life men to be raped or made pregnant without their consent as often as possible, too, or to die in childbirth, if it were possible for you to be impregnated, because it is disgusting to use the law to force women to be or stay pregnant against their will, and what you do unto others you truly deserve to have done unto you. That is called fairness.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

Killing kids is fairness = faux Feminism fail.

 

[choiceone]

Killing kids is fairness = faux Feminism fail.

Embryos are not kids. They are embryos. That you do not understand this is amazing.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

Embryos are not kids. They are embryos. That you do not understand this is amazing.

Right. Magically a 7 month old fetus becomes a 'child' when it departs from the mother's womb.

 

[Henrin]

I have no doubt that pro-choice women, of which I am one, would want pro life men to be raped or made pregnant without their consent as often as possible, too, or to die in childbirth, if it were possible for you to be impregnated, because it is disgusting to use the law to force women to be or stay pregnant against their will, and what you do unto others you truly deserve to have done unto you. That is called fairness.

So on this forum alone that is..

Three women that wish rape onto pro-lifers male or female.
Three women that want people to be made pregnant as often as possible
Two women that want men to be made pregnant and have it done to them repeatedly.
Two women that want women to die in child birth
One that wants men to die in child birth.

:damn

 

[choiceone]

So on this forum alone that is..

Three women that wish rape onto pro-lifers male or female.
Three women that want people to be made pregnant as often as possible
Two women that want men to be made pregnant and have it done to them repeatedly.
Two women that want women to die in child birth
One that wants men to die in child birth.

:damn

Correction. No one wants pro-choice men or pro-choice women to have these problems. You forgot to use "anti-choice" as an adjective.

I don't know why you are surprised. For most of my adult life, I have been a pacifist. But when the anti-choice state and federal legislators elected in 2010 started introducing all their anti-abortion bills, I had had enough. I couldn't start a violent civil war over this issue, but if other people started one, I realized that it was possible for me, too, fight and even kill in it, to shoot, bomb, and even suicide bomb the people trying to violate this right of bodily sovereignty of women. If the children of those people were collateral damage, I realized that it would not bother my conscience. Fighting in such a war would not be something my pacifist heart would recoil from because my God is pro-choice and that was it.