I've often wondered with them which came first? Is the fact that they are so dumb is what makes them Liberals? Or is being Liberal what makes them so damn dumb?
Just can't figure that one out Snow my Man!
Last edited:
If you're "pro choice"
- Thread starter atlkvb
- Start date
I've often wondered with them which came first? Is the fact that they are so dumb is what makes them Liberals? Or is being Liberal what makes them so damn dumb?
Just can't figure that one out Snow my Man!
if it had been you I wouldn't have dropped it.....I would have smashed it against the wall and then pissed on it
Such difficult questions.
Personally Snow Sled Baby, I wonder how many of the pro choice Left's own Mothers would "choose" to abort them today if given that option?
Imagine if @Keyser76 's Mom, or @countryroads89 's Mom knew when they were still in utero how they'd eventually turn out? :scream:
Maybe we could have been "spared" their nonsense on this forum if their Moms only had known back in the day? [smoke]
Last edited:
Didn't want to leave this part of our discussion just hanging with you @mule_eer
op-ed: Abortion is never medically necessary to save a Mother's Life
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary
(co authors of sourced medical analysis entitled "Dublin declaration on Maternal Healthcare" named in linked op-ed)
Therapeutic Abortion: The medical argument (no medical evidence finds Abortion can save a Mother's Life)
research
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7129852
https://afterabortion.org/2016/no-medical-evidence-finds-abortion-can-save-a-mothers-life/
Less than 1% of all abortions performed are done to save the Life of the Mother
(Statistical research data)
https://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8
The vast majority of Abortions are elective
Last edited:
All of my questions in the hypothetical OP were free for you to answer instead of the litany you spouted back to me. But I'm not a Leftist. I don't "avoid" answers to tough questions. Although you didn't answer any one of mine, I'll answer ALL of yours. I'll try to keep it short and to the point for other readers, but we can engage later if you're so inclined and won't "run off" or engage in pejorative name calling once we start mutually respectful discussion of this issue.
Here we go:
I'd ask what "mischaracterization" have I made? Current "pro choice" proponents favor no restrictions on abortions, and many are now arguing for post birth life decisions! Is that not a fact? Supporters of "abortion on demand" insist it's the "woman's right" and only her's to make that Life terminating decision at any time during her pregnancy for any reason! Is that not correct?
My questions were illogical, but a tactic used to expose the illogic of "on demand" abortions for circumstantial convenience only. What other viable reasons do pro choice proponents argue to terminate their unwanted pregnancies? To save the life of the Mother? Research I linked to ITT conclusively shows less than 1% of all abortions are done for that reason.
I used absurdity to expose the absurd. If my suggestion of allowing Mothers to terminate their own offspring by their own hands was "stupid", why is it "smarter" for her to pay someone else to do it often at taxpayer's expense?
I support that "choice" particularly for couples who are unable to naturally conceive. I am Pro Life. The fertilized ovum must STILL be placed inside a uterus in order to fully develop. "in vitro" fertilized ovum are not aborted! Your question is moot for purposes of this discussion.
Answered above
Specifically babies born to naturalized citizens on American soil are American citizens. I support that. I do not support illegally crossing our border or violating our established immigration law simply to birth a child on American soil to become a US citizen. The Baby still should not be aborted simply because the mother is an illegal alien, or does the birth of the baby on American soil make the mother suddenly legal.
answered above
If the mother is a naturalized US citizen, yes. If the mother arrives in the US illegally, NO!
answered above
I don't see what this has to do with abortion on demand, however regardless of where the child was conceived, that does not grant automatic US citizenship to the mother. Reverse your scenario. Child is conceived on foreign soil. Mother illegally comes into the US where child is born. Child is born on US soil but Mother is illegal and gets deported. Child remains with mother and as a matter of legal custody assumes Mother's legal place of residence. They key is where is the mother legally residing, not where the child is conceived.
Now, as I said, if you're willing to engage, I have several questions I'd like to ask YOU and would ask for the courtesy of your thoughtfully explained responses.
Do you favor Abortion on demand with no restrictions? If so why? If not, what restrictions do you favor and why?
Is a 20 week old fetus less viable than a 36 week fetus? Is a fully born infant more autonomous than an 8 week old fetus? Please explain your answers?
Is it more humane for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to kill her own child or pay someone else to do it? Explain your answer.
What else is a developing embryo if it isn't alive and human? Please give examples in your answer.
Is killing a fully born infant murder, even if the mother carried it full term and then decides after birth the pregnancy was "unwanted"? If you don't favor that (most don't btw) then at what point before the baby is born is it OK for her to terminate its life? Please explain your answer.
I'll give you some time to answer these (if you do) then we can carry our discussion further. I'll leave the name calling with you though until you get enough and run off after hurling your last few insults at me OK. [winking]
Here we go:
I'd ask what "mischaracterization" have I made? Current "pro choice" proponents favor no restrictions on abortions, and many are now arguing for post birth life decisions! Is that not a fact? Supporters of "abortion on demand" insist it's the "woman's right" and only her's to make that Life terminating decision at any time during her pregnancy for any reason! Is that not correct?
My questions were illogical, but a tactic used to expose the illogic of "on demand" abortions for circumstantial convenience only. What other viable reasons do pro choice proponents argue to terminate their unwanted pregnancies? To save the life of the Mother? Research I linked to ITT conclusively shows less than 1% of all abortions are done for that reason.
I used absurdity to expose the absurd. If my suggestion of allowing Mothers to terminate their own offspring by their own hands was "stupid", why is it "smarter" for her to pay someone else to do it often at taxpayer's expense?
I support that "choice" particularly for couples who are unable to naturally conceive. I am Pro Life. The fertilized ovum must STILL be placed inside a uterus in order to fully develop. "in vitro" fertilized ovum are not aborted! Your question is moot for purposes of this discussion.
Answered above
Specifically babies born to naturalized citizens on American soil are American citizens. I support that. I do not support illegally crossing our border or violating our established immigration law simply to birth a child on American soil to become a US citizen. The Baby still should not be aborted simply because the mother is an illegal alien, or does the birth of the baby on American soil make the mother suddenly legal.
answered above
If the mother is a naturalized US citizen, yes. If the mother arrives in the US illegally, NO!
answered above
I don't see what this has to do with abortion on demand, however regardless of where the child was conceived, that does not grant automatic US citizenship to the mother. Reverse your scenario. Child is conceived on foreign soil. Mother illegally comes into the US where child is born. Child is born on US soil but Mother is illegal and gets deported. Child remains with mother and as a matter of legal custody assumes Mother's legal place of residence. They key is where is the mother legally residing, not where the child is conceived.
Now, as I said, if you're willing to engage, I have several questions I'd like to ask YOU and would ask for the courtesy of your thoughtfully explained responses.
Do you favor Abortion on demand with no restrictions? If so why? If not, what restrictions do you favor and why?
Is a 20 week old fetus less viable than a 36 week fetus? Is a fully born infant more autonomous than an 8 week old fetus? Please explain your answers?
Is it more humane for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to kill her own child or pay someone else to do it? Explain your answer.
What else is a developing embryo if it isn't alive and human? Please give examples in your answer.
Is killing a fully born infant murder, even if the mother carried it full term and then decides after birth the pregnancy was "unwanted"? If you don't favor that (most don't btw) then at what point before the baby is born is it OK for her to terminate its life? Please explain your answer.
I'll give you some time to answer these (if you do) then we can carry our discussion further. I'll leave the name calling with you though until you get enough and run off after hurling your last few insults at me OK. [winking]
Last edited:
there would be toilets flushing all over the place....or a lot of ***** stains on the wall:flush:
I've been called stupid, and disparaged by Leftists who've posted in this thread. Yet I can't get any one of you to answer my "stupid" questions. (not even the stupid ones)
Why not?
Stupid questions shouldn't "mute" smarter folks being asked the stupid questions! If the questions are stupid, the smart people should be pointing out what makes them so? My "stupid" questions, admittedly hypothetical, draw silence from those suggesting their "stupidity"! It's one thing to call someone "stupid", quite another to not be able to explain what makes them so? If you ask me that's stupid! [eyeroll]
Example:
Stupid kid asks parent "Why do we have to pay for everything in the store we want, why can't we just take what we want?"
Stupid question correct?
Smarter Parent who knows better simply refuses to explain why the question is "stupid" and lets the kid take whatever they want from the store without paying for it.
So who's more stupid under that scenario, the stupid kid asking the stupid question, or the stupid Parent who remains silent & refuses to explain the kid's stupidity by answering the stupid question?
Why not?
Stupid questions shouldn't "mute" smarter folks being asked the stupid questions! If the questions are stupid, the smart people should be pointing out what makes them so? My "stupid" questions, admittedly hypothetical, draw silence from those suggesting their "stupidity"! It's one thing to call someone "stupid", quite another to not be able to explain what makes them so? If you ask me that's stupid! [eyeroll]
Example:
Stupid kid asks parent "Why do we have to pay for everything in the store we want, why can't we just take what we want?"
Stupid question correct?
Smarter Parent who knows better simply refuses to explain why the question is "stupid" and lets the kid take whatever they want from the store without paying for it.
So who's more stupid under that scenario, the stupid kid asking the stupid question, or the stupid Parent who remains silent & refuses to explain the kid's stupidity by answering the stupid question?
Last edited:
your first mistake was calling it a reasonably intelligent fellow.....your second mistake was using polysyllabic words
because I'm a funny guy
Is your silence responding to my questions in post #47 your example of "exposing" my suggested inconsistency or belief in protecting innocent human Life?
Last edited:
Snow Sled Baby I laugh at your posts because I know you do not take these Leftists seriously. Why I still do baffles me, but I'm honestly trying to understand how their logic works...or doesn't work? None of them however can ever explain themselves which leaves me even more confused over exactly how they think?
Telling.
@Ignorant Uneducated Deplorables YOU called me or at least my questions about unrestricted abortion on demand "stupid", and I explained in post #50 how is it "stupid" questions draw no responses from allegedly more intelligent people of which I'm assuming you've included yourself?
I posed as a hypothetical allowing mothers who have unwanted pregnancies to terminate their unwanted babies on their own. Pro choice advocates even today are insisting on allowing mothers to do just that, with NO RESTRICTIONS. Many of the current Democrat Presidential candidates also back that very same legislation...unrestricted on demand abortions at any time for any reason for anyone.
So my "stupid" question was since pro choice supporters are demanding unrestricted access to on demand convenience abortions, what's wrong with allowing the mothers to kill their own children at any time for any reason? The decision is the mother's alone to make is it not? So why not allow them to actually perform their own killing of their own children, even after birth if they so desire? What's the difference, born or unborn the baby is still dead correct?
Why is that question stupid, but granting them full access to allow their children to be killed by someone else at anytime for any reason NOT stupid?
I of course won't get an answer from you, but then what makes the question so stupid that you refuse to answer it or can't?
I posed as a hypothetical allowing mothers who have unwanted pregnancies to terminate their unwanted babies on their own. Pro choice advocates even today are insisting on allowing mothers to do just that, with NO RESTRICTIONS. Many of the current Democrat Presidential candidates also back that very same legislation...unrestricted on demand abortions at any time for any reason for anyone.
So my "stupid" question was since pro choice supporters are demanding unrestricted access to on demand convenience abortions, what's wrong with allowing the mothers to kill their own children at any time for any reason? The decision is the mother's alone to make is it not? So why not allow them to actually perform their own killing of their own children, even after birth if they so desire? What's the difference, born or unborn the baby is still dead correct?
Why is that question stupid, but granting them full access to allow their children to be killed by someone else at anytime for any reason NOT stupid?
I of course won't get an answer from you, but then what makes the question so stupid that you refuse to answer it or can't?
Last edited:
What "reasonable" or "rational" arguments have pro choicers made? What are yours?
@Ignorant Uneducated Deplorables I can see from your sig you're new to the forum, but you're not winning any credibility by showing up and blasting me for my posts in this thread, making snide comments about my lack of intelligence, then simply running off after getting slapped upside your head.
I'm used to you folks on the Left disappearing once you're confronted or asked to justify your rants, but you're starting a poor habit you might want to break before you get a bad rep on this board for being a "hit-and-run" poster. We already have our fair share of 'em on your side, we sure as Hell don't need anymore.
I'm used to you folks on the Left disappearing once you're confronted or asked to justify your rants, but you're starting a poor habit you might want to break before you get a bad rep on this board for being a "hit-and-run" poster. We already have our fair share of 'em on your side, we sure as Hell don't need anymore.
Great, that all I asked you to do. Explain your logic, or my "stupidity". You took the time to call me stupid, now take some time to explain why you're not? [eyeroll]
Last edited:
You said that the first time and never followed up.
No, I said people like you call me stupid but never back it up. You proved that
You said that already. You still haven't proven it.
This is stupid! Read what you just posted. How can I post something to you two hours before I posted something to you again?
What did I do post you two hours before you called me stupid, or two hours before your made yourself look stupid? [eyeroll]
Now you've not only diagnosed my stupidity, but my mental instability as well?
(after like only 5 posts!)
So tell me, is your expertise the result of first person experience or honed by a lifetime of well compensated practice?
Last edited:
How many more times will you call me "stupid" while attempting to exempt yourself? [eyeroll]
@Is This Moron Serious While you're crafting your brilliant expose on my stupidity here's another question you can answer for me to prove it. If that's not a heartbeat fetal doppler has identified in a gestating baby after only 8 weeks what else is it?
A fake EKG?
A fake EKG?
Here's another "stupid" question for @Is This Moron Serious
Do you know what this is? If you do, is it present in a baby at conception? If it is, does that make the conceived child human? If it doesn't, can you tell me what else it is if it isn't human?
I know, such stupid questions right? [eyeroll]
Do you know what this is? If you do, is it present in a baby at conception? If it is, does that make the conceived child human? If it doesn't, can you tell me what else it is if it isn't human?
I know, such stupid questions right? [eyeroll]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-yo...f-mothers-health-is-at-risk-today-2019-01-23/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ou...regnancies-could-be-terminated-up-until-birth
Illinois passes new bill lifting abortion restrictions
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/1/186485...ll-2019-fundamental-right-repeal-restrictions
Vermont passes late term abortion bill, includes post birth abortions
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/politics/vermont-governor-abortion-bill/index.html
Most Democrat candidates favor no restrictions on abortions, oppose anti-abortion restrictions
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...democrats-alabama-abortion-ban-hyde-amendment
Yup...you sure proved my stupidity! [eyeroll]
Exactly! Which is why I proposed actually birthing the babies first! It's still killing an unwanted pregnancy correct? What's the difference if that Baby is dismembered 12 inches inside a mother's birth canal (perfectly legal btw with partial birth abortion) and holding the baby 12 inches outside the uterus and dismembering it? It's still a fully formed Baby is it not? Why is one procedure argued for on the Left, and you're calling the other "infanticide". That's not stupid? Maybe that's why you think I am?
A criminal who kills an expectant mother's baby before it's born can be charged with murder. If that Baby has no rights until it is born, explain how this is so? I'm stupid remember? [eyeroll]
I fully explained my answer to this earlier in the thread. We disagree. Conception protects only the Life of the Baby, not where it's born.
The examples you give in this case aren't "unwanted" pregnancies. They are miscarriages, or at least not fully viable fertilized embryos. You said many are discarded. Why? Because YOU said they cannot fully develop. So how is that aborting a perfectly healthy viable embryo? You're mixing apples and oranges trying to make a case for 99.9% of abortions that are performed on perfectly healthy and viable growing babies solely because they are unwanted. That's real smart. [eyeroll]
Last edited:
At any time, for any reason, for anyone. No restrictions...up to and including moments before birth. Almost every major Democrat supports this. You don't?
now you are showing YOUR ignorance about the viability of a fetus after only 16 weeks!
https://thechive.com/2014/08/06/a-b...mature-makes-a-miraculous-recovery-35-photos/
One of the other posters in this thread used that word "non autonomous entity" to describe a growing fetus at only 8 weeks. You missed the essence of my stupid question. A baby at 8 weeks is just as "non autonomous" as a baby at 36 weeks. Neither can survive without loving care from its mother. In both cases no matter how far long in development, that is still a baby in need of a mother's love and care. Yes they are at different stages of development...just as a 5 year old needs different attention than a 15 year old, but both still need the love and care of the Mother (and Father). But my question was too stupid for you to understand.
Last edited:
So what would you call what this guy did to Women?
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/kermit-gosnell-abortion-doctor-found-guilty-of-murder.html
Kermit Gosnell was just the beginning
https://catholicwomensforum.org/ker...ors-operate-with-impunity-around-the-country/
So if the baby is not a protected person inside the womb, explain how it can be murdered by a criminal who attacks the mother during a robbery and kills her baby? Another stupid question?
Oklahoma Man accused of killing pregnant girlfriend, unborn baby
https://www.foxnews.com/us/oklahoma-man-accused-of-killing-pregnant-girlfriend-unborn-baby
Man stabs pregnant woman and Baby to death, no charges of killing child thanks to NY abortion Law
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/201...s-for-killing-child-thanks-to-ny-abortion-law
Man accused of kicking woman's stomach, killing unborn child
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/us...pregnant-woman-s-stomach-killing-unborn-child
Last edited:
I'll let Virginia Governor Ralph Northam explain it to you.
That's all I've been doing responding to YOU making me look stupid. [eyeroll]
Last edited:
Sorry if you can't keep up with me. I must be too stupid & slow for you? [eyeroll] Now that I'm thoroughly exposed by your brilliant expose of my stupidity...do you have any more names you wish to call me, or have you proved your point of my intellectual vapidness?
@Is This Moron Serious
You said you oppose later term abortions? However you never answered the second part of my question. When is it OK to kill a baby before it's born? Or put another way, at what point does killing an unborn baby become infanticide? Current legislation pending in many Leftist dominated states pins that amount of time to moments before full delivery, and it has tremendous support both among Democrats running for President as well as Democrat voters.
Partial birth abortions are legal in over a dozen States. You oppose or support those late term abortion permissions?
States that allow/restrict in tact dilation and extractions (partial birth abortions)
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/partial-birth-abortion-bans/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}
You said you oppose later term abortions? However you never answered the second part of my question. When is it OK to kill a baby before it's born? Or put another way, at what point does killing an unborn baby become infanticide? Current legislation pending in many Leftist dominated states pins that amount of time to moments before full delivery, and it has tremendous support both among Democrats running for President as well as Democrat voters.
Partial birth abortions are legal in over a dozen States. You oppose or support those late term abortion permissions?
States that allow/restrict in tact dilation and extractions (partial birth abortions)
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/partial-birth-abortion-bans/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}
Last edited:
Good job with the name calling, I was wondering when you'd get around to that? You aren't listening to your own side of this debate! The recent rash of "heartbeat" bills you Leftists are so exercised about is a direct response to the growing call for lifting ALL restrictions on abortions, even post birth! This is why folks are so outraged, because your side is arguing for Mothers killing their unwanted Babies even after they're born!
Democrats overplay their hand on Abortion
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...-virginia-push-expand-abortion-rights/581959/
excerpt
Already, the Democratic Party platform states that it “will protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion” and enumerates no limits on that right.
I'm stupid 'ya know? What does "no limits" mean to YOU smart guy?
After birth abortions: Can they be serious?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...log.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.987fa689fc3a
excerpt
“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk,” the article reads. “We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.”
...more
"Pro-life voices have already latched onto the piece and the premise, ascribing motives not only to the authors – who really should have known better – but also to anyone who ever uttered a pro-choice word. This is what is in their dark hearts, or as Kelly Boggs in Baptist Press writes, “The authors use the exact same arguments to justify infanticide that abortion advocates use in defense of killing pre-born children".
After birth abortion: the "intuition" argument
https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/e5
Last edited:
Have you heard of incrementalism? Restrictions lifted on third trimester abortions led to partial birth abortions. Partial birth abortions led to lifting limits on near birth abortions. Near birth abortions led to proposals to lift limits on ALL abortions, and the "heartbeat" bills now rapidly making their way through various State legislatures is an effort to reverse that encroaching permission for post birth abortions or INFANTICIDE, which has already been proposed in some States!
Here, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam again explains his own State's proposal in case you didn't catch it earlier in the thread.
Last edited: