There is Everything Wrong with Abortion
What_You_Talkin_ Bout

Marcus Hook, PA

#230597 May 21, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>You are so ignorant it's impossible to insult you, huh?
NO pregnancy is guaranteed to come to term no matter how much the woman may wish that.
EVERY pregnancy has the potential to kill or disable the woman who is pregnant.
Less than half of the fertilized eggs survive tol implant, and those that implant in the wrong place can kill the woman, sometimes before she even knows she's pregnant.
Go back to trying to colour within the lines, maybe someday you'll be capable of learning biological and medical facts, but I wouldn't count on it.
I'M IGNORANT??!!! LMAO!!!!!!!! Let's see um there does exist such thing as a c-section right? and even if the women dies of giving birth at least there will be a new being and that being would be thankful that his/her mother didn't abort him/her.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#230598 May 21, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no real understanding of the Bible. Like many people, you make it say what you want it to.
Really rich considering you spout nonsense from the Torah without bothering to even understand it. Like the fact that Jewish law recognises the necessity of abortions, for one.

Stop facking appropriating my religion to "justify" YOUR religious thought on abortions. And stop referencing it as "Judeo Christian," there's nothing 'Judeo' about your opinions and religious thought AT ALL.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#230599 May 21, 2013
What_You_Talkin_Bout wrote:
<quoted text> I'M IGNORANT??!!! LMAO!!!!!!!! Let's see um there does exist such thing as a c-section right? and even if the women dies of giving birth at least there will be a new being and that being would be thankful that his/her mother didn't abort him/her.
So you're actually saying that it's better that the mother DIES as long as her kid lives? Gee, like if that weren't insensitive enough, considering the fact that you think it's ok that that child will grow up without knowing his/her biological mother, or the fact that you're treating women like disposable baby harvesters.

WOMEN ARE NOT DISPOSABLE AND THEIR WORTH ISN'T DEFINED BY WHAT THEIR WOMBS CARRY YOU F@CKING DICK
What_You_Talkin_ Bout

Marcus Hook, PA

#230600 May 21, 2013
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're actually saying that it's better that the mother DIES as long as her kid lives? Gee, like if that weren't insensitive enough, considering the fact that you think it's ok that that child will grow up without knowing his/her biological mother, or the fact that you're treating women like disposable baby harvesters.
WOMEN ARE NOT DISPOSABLE AND THEIR WORTH ISN'T DEFINED BY WHAT THEIR WOMBS CARRY YOU F@CKING DICK
So apply that last thing you said with this... What if that women was going to have a girl... she would eventually become a woman... and you're acting like 100% of the women who give birth die you dumbs! lol look at me, arguing with someone who will keep defending his statement. i should just stop because if i dont this would just keep going. believe whatever dumbass logic you want to believe.
What_You_Talkin_ Bout

Marcus Hook, PA

#230601 May 21, 2013
*dumbass

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#230602 May 21, 2013
Let me ask you prochoice people something! If you consent and non-consent for your child, when does your child existence start?

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#230603 May 21, 2013
I am all about prochoice, but when your child is not able to make choices do you have the right to say if they should exist or not exist at any point or given time? Once again, when does your child start to exist?
LightForce

Warren, MI

#230606 May 21, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, if you were to actually read it, you might actually be able to provide an INFORMED opinion on the book, rather than just blathering baseless bigotry.
<quoted text>
The way I see it is if the poster brings up a source, it is their responsibility to make a point based on what it says, and not my responsibility to read it. My response is based on the point that they make and not about the book itself because obviously I haven’t read it and probably never will, but feel free to educate me about it.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#230607 May 21, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
You could also site free school lunches, the switch to reduced-fat milk for kids, or the increase in churches preaching Biblical inerrancy. You don't know enough about cause and effect to make a rational comment.

And without looking at a LOT of other data, these figures are meaningless in this discussion. Just off the top of my head, you would need to take into consideration the number of people living below the poverty line, the number of single parent families, the number of children living with a step-father, rates of substance abuse, exposure to toxic chemicals (current and historical, going back to the grandparents of the abusers), and the average age of abusive parents. I am sure that there are many more factors as well.
Include on that list drug use, one parent homes, both parents working, ADHD and/or drugs to treat ADHD, effects of multiple vaccinations on babies and children, Vietnam and gulf wars, etc., etc., etc. The list keeps going.

The important thing is that we should not blame the “poor” for crime. If it weren’t for the amount of wealth and property held by only a few, coupled with the regulations and ordinances written by those that have more, and that are unachievable by others, I believe that we would not have anywhere near the amount of poverty and crime that we have.

The rich are the ones that define who the poor are. They can give and they can take. There really should not be any problem with poverty in a country with as much wealth as ours.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#230608 May 21, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
But you have NOT analyzed the data, you have merely taken a single data point nad quoted it out of context. That is a form of lying.
And you really need to learn to not lie. There is NO evidence to support your claim. Many women who have elective abortions never experience any psychological damage, and rational people understand that a fetus is not a child so that aborting a fetus has NO bearing on the value placed on future live children.
It’s just a reasonable assumption based on the observable evidence. For instance, if you were wearing a dirty pair of socks, it would also be reasonable to assume that your feet stink.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#230610 May 21, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Let me ask you prochoice people something! If you consent and non-consent for your child, when does your child existence start?
Children are born.
A zygote, embryo or foetus is not a child or a baby.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#230611 May 21, 2013
What_You_Talkin_Bout wrote:
<quoted text> I'M IGNORANT??!!! LMAO!!!!!!!! Let's see um there does exist such thing as a c-section right? and even if the women dies of giving birth at least there will be a new being and that being would be thankful that his/her mother didn't abort him/her.
You are ignorant. Ever hear of an ectopic pregnancy? There is no c-section option there.
There are many more medical conditions/situations where abortion is the only way to save the woman's life, and many where a c-section would save the woman, only to have the baby die within moments, or to deliver an already dead foetus.
Once again, if it is not your pregnancy, in your uterus, it is none of your business.
Your first two word of your post says it all. You are ignorant.
lisw

Wilmington, OH

#230612 May 21, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>You are ignorant. Ever hear of an ectopic pregnancy? There is no c-section option there.
There are many more medical conditions/situations where abortion is the only way to save the woman's life, and many where a c-section would save the woman, only to have the baby die within moments, or to deliver an already dead foetus.
Once again, if it is not your pregnancy, in your uterus, it is none of your business.
Your first two word of your post says it all. You are ignorant.
You have to think everyone is ignorant if you think they should think that the removal of an ectopic pregnancy is the same as an abortion. An ectopic pregnancy never has a chance of producing a baby and it always endangers the life of the mother. Noone in their right mind would refuse the removal of an ectopic pregnancy.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#230613 May 21, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Include on that list drug use, one parent homes, both parents working, ADHD and/or drugs to treat ADHD, effects of multiple vaccinations on babies and children, Vietnam and gulf wars, etc., etc., etc. The list keeps going.
The important thing is that we should not blame the “poor” for crime. If it weren’t for the amount of wealth and property held by only a few, coupled with the regulations and ordinances written by those that have more, and that are unachievable by others, I believe that we would not have anywhere near the amount of poverty and crime that we have.
The rich are the ones that define who the poor are. They can give and they can take. There really should not be any problem with poverty in a country with as much wealth as ours.
And yet, you advocate criminalizing abortion, which will almost exclusively affect the poor, who cannot afford to travel to where the procedure is still legal, and obtain a safe one. The wealthy will obtain legal safe abortions regardless of the law here.

Criminalizing abortion won't stop the procedure, or even make it rare...it will only render it more dangerous, and encourage the proliferation of Gosnells. Without regulations in place to be followed, there will be no oversight, and women will die along with their fetii.

But I'm guessing all your 'compassion' for poor folk doesn't extend to them, anyway.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#230614 May 21, 2013
What_You_Talkin_Bout wrote:
<quoted text> So apply that last thing you said with this... What if that women was going to have a girl... she would eventually become a woman... and you're acting like 100% of the women who give birth die you dumbs! lol look at me, arguing with someone who will keep defending his statement. i should just stop because if i dont this would just keep going. believe whatever dumbass logic you want to believe.
Not only does your argument not make any sense at all, but you completely evaded a rebuttal of my post under the assumption that this garbage that you spout of "replacing one for the other" is apparently VERRRRY ethical to you, you uneducated SOB.

Lemme repeat again so your walnut sized brain can comprehend: WOMEN ARE NOT DISPOSABLE BABY MAKING MACHINES AND THEIR WORTH ISN'T DETERMINED BY WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT CARRY IN THEIR WOMBS.

“What is it”

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#230615 May 21, 2013
Captain O wrote:
<quoted text>Use your brain, if you happen to have one
Lol.

And you must be eating brain tumors for breakfast to nourish your exceptional intelligence. Right?
Captain O wrote:
<quoted text>There is no difference between killing born babies and unborn babies.
There is no baby involved in an abortion. You understand the difference right?
Captain O wrote:
<quoted text>Both the born and unborn are babies (= living human beings).
Oh yeah? And your word is worth what? Is it more convincing than a woman who does not want/Cannot afford to have a child?

Is your word more convincing than the collective wisdom of Supreme Court deciding Roe Vs. Wade?
So you just decide to drag your sorry existence on a forum and expect your rants to receive meek submission?
Captain O wrote:
<quoted text>Thus murdering an unborn baby
What planet are you from? How can ANYONE murder someone who is NOT born?

Idiot.
Captain O wrote:
<quoted text> Got it?
Yes I got that you need focused attention of an A grade psychiatrist as soon as possible.

“What is it”

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#230616 May 21, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Through representatives. Right. Fetus as victim? No - that is the State, as you pointed out, or the mother, as I did.
Ok.
Have you EVER in your life read some real legislation?

I am sorry but you are forcing me to be rude.

Now read and understand.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (also known as "Laci and Conner's Law"), was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed TWO HUMAN VICTIMS. The bill would establish that if a "child in utero" is injured or killed during the commission of certain federal crimes of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a SECOND OFFENCE on behalf of the SECOND VICTIM, the UNBORN CHILD.

The exact charge would depend on which federal law is involved, the degree of harm done to the child, and other factors. The law applies this TWO-VICTIM PRINCIPLE to 68 existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence. These laws cover a considerable number of activities defined as federal crimes wherever they occur, including interstate stalking, kidnapping, bombings, and offenses related to major drug trafficking, and attacks on federal employees. In addition, these laws cover federal geographical jurisdictions, such as federal lands and tribal lands, and the military justice system.

Prior to enactment of this law, an unborn child was NOT recognized as a VICTIM with respect to violent crimes. Thus, for example, if a criminal beat a woman on a military base, and killed her unborn child, he would be charged only with the battery against the woman, because the unborn child's LOSS OF LIFE was not recognized by the law. Likewise, a bombing that injured a woman and killed her unborn child was not recognized as involving any loss of human life.
Have any doubts?

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#230617 May 22, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you can't remember reading about Westboro Baptist Church, I'm a liar?
Google the word logic. You can use some.
Let's see; I work for a living, don't depend upon anyone other than myself for my support, raised two sons myself, made a difficult decision in order to be the best mother I could to them, and don't denigrate people for a decision they made in regard to their reproductive systems.
YOU depend upon the gov't and your mentally abused ex-spouse for your financial needs, trash women for a decision they made regarding their reproductive system, allowed your children to live with an abusive spouse, lied and manipulated people just to get attention, and couldn't even commit suicide successfully.
I'd say that makes YOU trash.
You work for a living??????
Now thats a laugh. You steal from your boss everyday when you sit on Topix.
Nope I was right you are definately trash.And once again you lie,my children were long ago out of the house when my ex became abusive.
Yes I get disability,so what. And I no longer depend on my ex for anything.
And everytime you mention raising 2 sons,you always leave out your daughter.
Once again,it is because she got away from your sorry ass.
Smart,smart girl.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#230619 May 22, 2013
Southern Reaper wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you please repeat that in a less confusing way? I'm not following you.
When does a child existence start in your book, at conception or after he/she is physically born into this world? I am all about pro-choice and I also think the child choices should be protected to until they are able to consent and make choices on their own.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#230620 May 22, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>Children are born.
A zygote, embryo or foetus is not a child or a baby.
So if a woman is six to seven moths pregnant and someone murders her and the baby dies also. How many victims should the murder be charged with?

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
Kürtaj Turizm 6 min bilgiuzmani 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min lightbeamrider 864,483
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min USA Born 599,584
QUEERZ 4 FEARZ: the DARK WORLD of the HOMOSEXUA... 8 min andet1987 12
Something blocking my vaginal entrance...? 12 min andet1987 3
how to get self-confidence? 35 min alin 1
The Christian Atheist debate 57 min dGo mDaedn lyHo i... 1,986
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 hr -Stray Dog 6,456
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Epiphany2 612,903
More from around the web