100% of those abortions are of unwanted children.
No such article exists on Wikipedia. Got a link to the source?
You are right, I forgot all about that 1% of late term abortions in my indignation at the stupidity of the abortion/war chart. Late term abortions are all children that were very much wanted when it was discovered that something was going terribly wrong with either the mother or the fetus.That is incorrect. Most late term abortions, while a minority, are almost (note my lack of the all inclusive statement) all wanted. The woman not wanting to die, or not wanting to subject the offspring to extreme physical or mental deformities does not make them unwanted.
For when you get off your suspension:For now it is, it is the opposite of moral and correct and is horrible. Abortion is never needed, adoption works.
And when birth control fails, or the doctor refuses to perform the tubal ligation?learn to use birth control or get the good ole tubes tied, it will save your soul.
Where have you been? This is a problem here in the US as well. Women who need to get full hysterectomies due to endometriosis or other conditions are being met with the same resistance if they haven't had a child already.WHAT? You mean in Canada there is a requirement to have at least one kid before getting your tubes tied? That is ludicrous. The whole idea is to avoid having that one kid.
You will note that @TurboSlayer will never answer these questions, because the answers will undercut his argument. Sadly, there are several other countries that do actually charge women with murder if they have a miscarriage.- can that child live outside the women's body at that point?
- If a mother has a miscarriage, is she committing murder?
I know.You will note that @TurboSlayer will never answer these questions, because the answers will undercut his argument. Sadly, there are several other countries that do actually charge women with murder if they have a miscarriage.
I did not say there's a legal requirement.WHAT? You mean in Canada there is a requirement to have at least one kid before getting your tubes tied? That is ludicrous. The whole idea is to avoid having that one kid.
None of them forbid a woman from terminating her pregnancy.You might want to revisit the 10 commandments.
I do believe you are mistaken.
Thou shall not kill is pretty straightforward to me. You kill a defenseless child I highly doubt God is going to be happy about his children getting murdered before having the right to be protected by the constitution.None of them forbid a woman from terminating her pregnancy.
Like this beautiful personDefine abortion survivors. Because if you simply mean anyone who was born because their mother didn't have an abortion that would include all pro-choice people, which means your statement would be a blatant lie. It's most likely just misrepresentative though.
Your opponent said "The constitution, does however, say that the state shall at no time deprive anyone of life." I would like to add to your response that the state does not perform abortions - medical personnel do.Already disproven earlier in the thread
It also keeps away from society destructive and evil people who would otherwise be here to cause mayhem. For every Ghandi that is born a Mussolini is born. For every Ghandi that is aborted, a Mussolini is aborted. Since you can't prove one way or another which way a born being will go, you are equally birthing or aborting good and evil, contributing and destructive.
Sacred is a subjective value.
Plenty of women with huge warm hearts that have had abortions
Specifically what problems?
What blame is attached to the "victim"?
Plenty of mothers who have had an abortion who have not been destroyed.
Plenty of families that have not been destroyed where the woman has gotten an abortion.
Goddess is just fine with it. It reduces the number born into poverty or abuse.
Except for the two children she already had as mentioned in the post. So no she doesn't have to fend for herself. In fact many women who have abortions also have children at another point in their lives. On the other side of the coin, there is also the possibility that she aborted none of her children and none of them take care of her when she's old, and she still has to fend for herself.
Define abortion survivors. Because if you simply mean anyone who was born because their mother didn't have an abortion that would include all pro-choice people, which means your statement would be a blatant lie. It's most likely just misrepresentative though.
I do believe that you are mistaken. You might want to revisit Exodus 21:22-25. If the woman is injured, it's eye for eye and all that, but the unborn child, effectively aborted by the one who struck her, simple fine. Nowhere near the penalty called for by murder. If it was considered murder then they would have called for the murder penalty.
And yet the state somehow still deprives people of life with the death penalty within both civil and military aspects.
Incorrect. First off all those laws specifically note that they do NOT apply to abortion. If such was as you claimed, then they would specifically note that they do apply to abortion. Secondly, what those laws provide for is not much more than what laws that apply to abuse and mistreatment of animals provide for. And certainly animals are not being given identical rights to that of a born person.
Godwin's Law.Thou shall not kill is pretty straightforward to me. You kill a defenseless child I highly doubt God is going to be happy about his children getting murdered before having the right to be protected by the constitution.
You are changing the goal posts because you need to dehumanize the victim. Same thing happened to the blacks and jews during WW2.
View attachment 67367412
It's dishonest. RvW did not kill anyone.No such article exists on Wikipedia. Got a link to the source?
Where have you been? This is a problem here in the US as well. Women who need to get full hysterectomies due to endometriosis or other conditions are being met with the same resistance if they haven't had a child already.
The Bible says nothing about Abortion.You might want to revisit the 10 commandments.
I do believe you are mistaken.
It's the general idea of life saving measures and the preservation of life. Doesn't specifically have to say:Your opponent said "The constitution, does however, say that the state shall at no time deprive anyone of life." I would like to add to your response that the state does not perform abortions - medical personnel do.
You have to kill the unborn baby to perform the abortion, right?The Bible says nothing about Abortion.
The Hebrew says " You shall do no murder." Abortion is legal so not murder.Thou shall not kill is pretty straightforward to me. You kill a defenseless child I highly doubt God is going to be happy about his children getting murdered before having the right to be protected by the constitution.
You are changing the goal posts because you need to dehumanize the victim. Same thing happened to the blacks and jews during WW2.
View attachment 67367412
You are splitting hairs and you know it. This is just semantics people. When you try to pin these people down and inform them that God is angry about it, they use this line. Make no mistake, regardless of what they will tell you or what laws are on the books, they are all based on a lie (see above) so abortion is most definitely murder, 100%. This is just typical damage control. Again, they dehumanize the victims by saying they are not people. How are people supposed to become people if they get murdered first?The Hebrew says " You shall do no murder." Abortion is legal so not murder.
Every wonder why all abortion SURVIVORS are pro life?
Define abortion survivors. Because if you simply mean anyone who was born because their mother didn't have an abortion that would include all pro-choice people, which means your statement would be a blatant lie. It's most likely just misrepresentative though.
Ok, fair enough. You are speaking specifically about someone who the mother attempted to abort, and survived regardless. However, not all abortion survivors are pro-life.Like this beautiful person
View attachment 67367414
Melissa’s Story – Abortion Survivors Network
Abortion doesn‘t just end a life most of the time, it impacts relationships and families for generations.abortionsurvivors.org
In 1977, Melissa’s biological mother was a 19 year old college student when she had a saline infusion abortion that was meant to end Melissa’s life. Although her biological mother thought that she was less than five months pregnant when she had the abortion, the fact that Melissa survived and weighed almost 3 pounds indicates that her biological mother was much further along in her pregnancy than she realized. In fact, when Melissa obtained her medical records in 2007 that detail the abortion procedure that she survived, one of the first notations by a doctor after she survived was that she looked like she was approximately 31 weeks gestation! Despite the initial concerns that doctors had regarding her ability to survive, and the quality of life she would experience if she did, today Melissa is a healthy 34-year-old woman.
Was the claim made that RvW killed anyone? I thought the claim was that abortion did.It's dishonest. RvW did not kill anyone.
Your God is angry. He's always angry because He's really not a nice or pleasant God.You are splitting hairs and you know it. This is just semantics people. When you try to pin these people down and inform them that God is angry about it, they use this line.
You are free to call it murder. But you and your angry God don't get to call the shots for American women. We are free to call it legal abortion.Make no mistake, regardless of what they will tell you or what laws are on the books, they are all based on a lie (see above) so abortion is most definitely murder, 100%.
Calling a fetus a fetus is just simple fact. Calling a fetus a little unborn child is dishonest semantics. It's a fetus.This is just typical damage control. Again, they dehumanize the victims by saying they are not people. How are people supposed to become people if they get murdered first?
Abortion is not turning backs on children. On the contrary it is a medical procedure used by women and their families that have determined that now is a very bad time to bring a child into the family for psychological or financial or legal or medical reasons and the child will suffer. Why do you and your God want to create a child that has almost not chance of success as an adult. Do you realize what a horror you are trying to impose on children?A society that turns its back on its own children is headed for a bad time. Mark my words.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?