Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228784 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pearly handicapped? Now THAT'S ironic...lol. Thanks for the laugh psycho.
I don't expect you to understand the logic. There's a lot your feeble mind doesn't comprehend.
I easily understand your attempt at logic. It's just not very logical. Just another way for disgrace to justify killing her child.

There is no logic you old use.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228785 Apr 7, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
I easily understand your attempt at logic. It's just not very logical. Just another way for disgrace to justify killing her child.
There is no logic you old use.
I don't think you do. No, in fact, I KNOW you don't. Your second and third sentences aren't even grammatically correct, so I'm quite positive you're not a smart person.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228786 Apr 7, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>This is as close as you've come to admitting that you were willing risk both her death, AND the resultant termination of her pregnancy. And you call yourself "Pro-Life"??
I think I'll trust my obstetrician's judgment on that rather than yours, if it's all the same to you.
My two born children are proof that I made the right choice.
Your dead child would likely disagree. If dead children could talk.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228787 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you do. No, in fact, I KNOW you don't. Your second and third sentences aren't even grammatically correct, so I'm quite positive you're not a smart person.
You don't "know" much.

Except, of course, that you selfishly killed your child. Pretty hard to justify that.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#228788 Apr 7, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your dead child would likely disagree. If dead children could talk.
We'd both have been dead, you ass. And my born children would then never have been born.

You're dead between the ears.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228789 Apr 7, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>We'd both have been dead, you ass. And my born children would then never have been born.
You're dead between the ears.
Sure you would have.

What a convenient excuse. You're one of the 3%.

More lies from the liar.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#228790 Apr 7, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, linking directly to a study that supports my claim isn't proof?
Ok, CPT Kangaroo.
Problem is, you never actually did link to your "source." Duh.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#228791 Apr 7, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you would have.
What a convenient excuse. You're one of the 3%.
More lies from the liar.
Yes, I'm one of the three percent.
I didn't find it at all convenient.
I found it terrifying, painful, and expensive.

And I find you utterly repugnant.
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228792 Apr 7, 2013
Look, you maniacs.

Abortion is going to happen.

Too bad.

Humans are killers, period.

We need to accept it.

Abortions will continue any way they can.

Arguing is pointless.
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228793 Apr 7, 2013
Abortion is one way the homosapien culls its population.

It's gruesome, but it's reality.

It's all about resources.

Overpopulation and overcrowding will cause the same result as abortion ANYWAY - death.

You will die either way.

Stop arguing about abortion. Arguing is doing nothing to stop it.
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228794 Apr 7, 2013
At least all these aborted fetuses don't have to live in this f*cked up world where they won't have to hear people call them welfare leeches.

Abortion has its benifits.

1. The world is less crowded.

2. Lower potential for welfare leeches, criminals and psychos to be born.

3. Resources go farther as there are fewer people using them and fighting over them.

Abortion is going to happen whether some of you like it or not.

Abortion is part of who we are as an animal species. We are like rats when we get too crowded - if we don't kill proactively we will kill retroactively.

Death happens anyway, so why the big cry about abortion?

At least the babies won't live only to get blown up in a nuclear holocaust, anyway.
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228795 Apr 7, 2013
Abortion.

Will.

Continue.

To.

Happen.

Arguing.

Will.

Never.

Stop it.
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228796 Apr 7, 2013
No need to really worry about abortion.

The world is going into nuclear war so we're all going to die, anyway.

In the face of nuclear war, abortion is a moot point.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228797 Apr 7, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your dead child would likely disagree. If dead children could talk.
It must suck being you. Alone and full of misguided rage that you feel the need to take it out on a woman who had to make such a decision. You're special breed of "bad."

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228798 Apr 7, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't "know" much.
Except, of course, that you selfishly killed your child. Pretty hard to justify that.
Yup. That's what I did. Writing you from prison for killing my child. Idiot.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228799 Apr 7, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I'm one of the three percent.
I didn't find it at all convenient.
I found it terrifying, painful, and expensive.
And I find you utterly repugnant.
This guy is filth. Absolute filth. Probably why his wife took his kids and ran away from him.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228800 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it outside the womb? Then yes.
LightForce, you should give your friend Grunt a tip or two about how to participate in a debate. At least you have something to say.
I bet you might even answer my question.
If your wife was pregnant and contracted a life-threatening disease of which she will certainly die if she does not have an abortion, what do you choose to do? How would you handle that situation? There's no wrong or right answer I'm looking for. Just an answer.
To your question, this would be an emotional decision based on a current relationship with someone who is presumably loved very much, and with the prospect of losing that person. In that situation where we know for certain that there is no chance at all for her to survive without the abortion, if there is any chance at all for her to live, then I would want her to have the abortion. If she has almost no chance of surviving even with the abortion, it would be a very difficult decision, because you risk losing both of them. Then again, if there is any possible chance that she would survive without having the abortion, you could be killing the child unnecessarily. In this last scenario the decision would be based on the level of your morality, in whether you would risk your life to save another. I myself would, but I wouldn’t be able to make that decision for my wife, so if I was forced to make the decision for her I would have to favor her life. There are a lot of other possible hypothetical scenarios that might occur, and most of the choices that we make would be based on our level of morality, but others would be not much different than tossing a coin to decide. Looking at it objectively, both lives have great inherent value, and the futures of both deserve to be considered. Either way, the survival instinct plays a large role in the decision, and I've never viewed killing in the act of self-defense as immoral if a life is in immenent danger.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228801 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
I like what you said, but it has one problem. You said the strong protecting the weak, the rich protecting the poor. Except people like Grunt do not want to do these things. Once an unwanted child is born, they do not want to lift a finger to help that child live a normal life. He doesn't want to pay taxes for any sort of subsidized living. It just so happens that a woman accidentally got pregnant and maybe doesn't have the best education or has fallen on hard times and requires subsidized living. Now, I THINK it's responsible to take advantage of the tax dollars we all pay to create a more civilized society and use that money to give that child food, clothing, a bed, and a warm place to live. Yet Grunt and many others like him disagree with that. They think it should be solely up to the mother to just *poof* come up with a new life overnight.
Grunt does OK speaking for himself, but yes, we all need to take responsibility for the welfare of society as a whole, and the fact that some people will always act selfishly and irresponsible just means that the rest of us need to commit even more to that responsibility. How can we ever expect to be treated equally when we treat others unequally? How can we expect others to show respect for us when we ourselves are disrespectful to others? If we don’t commit ourselves to taking responsibility for the welfare of others, then we shouldn’t expect that others will ever take responsibility for the welfare of others either. By our actions, we all take part in shaping the world that we live in. The bottom line is that we need to always try and combat the injustices that we see in our world, but we’ll never accomplish that by committing even more injustices ourselves, or by either setting or building upon an unjust foundation.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228802 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever been on a plane? You are aware that they tell people traveling with children to put a mask over their own face first before putting one on the child. Figure that one out.
And by the by, I have never heard of a medical case where a pregnant woman was in critical condition and they took care of the fetus first.
What does this have anything to do with my comment?
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228803 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you *think* something doesn't make it true. Lots of people think a lot of things about PP that aren't true. But people refuse to hear facts because it suits their agenda.
You need to learn how to view the evidence, and to detect the obvious clues. When a spokesperson for PP might consider discussing the possible merits of saving a child’s life, that should at least give you a clue. When she won’t come out and say the obvious when asked, that the life of a child should be saved, that should give you another clue. You can’t come to a conclusion before looking at the evidence, unless your conclusion is preconceived. My conclusion is based solely on the factual evidence here. Then again, in addition to born children in all likelihood being killed, we need to of course consider the rights of the preborn children being killed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Paul Porter1 831,271
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 11 min WildWeirdWillie 176,584
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 19 min Anthony MN 586,319
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 40 min Paul Porter1 442,990
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 46 min Neelakaran 6,446
Das Leitbild der Aztec Group 46 min xoxobella25 6
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr Halle Berry Sister 2,324
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr TIM958 611,961
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 99,360
More from around the web