An OPP Exchange Over Pro-lIfe (Page 3): You - and other pro deathers - forget about the right of the innocent life. The vast majority of the time anortions are done for convenience.

Rose42

DASHY wrote:

FYI A******n (pregnancy termination) happens before the dog has puppies. A fetus's right is debatable. A woman's right is not debatable. She wins every time.

You - and other pro deathers - forget about the right of the innocent life.

The vast majority of the time anortions are done for convenience.

DASHY

archie bunker wrote:

More deflection, and ignoring science.

Row v. Wade decision had nothing to do with science. It talked about not allowing government intrusion on a woman's right to privacy. For the last 50 years or so, political debaters wanted to talk about science. Any progress?

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

DASHY wrote:

By using the term pro-deathers you must be thinking about the attitude of the Trump cult members who attacked us on J****** 6th at the capitol in Washington. Did you learn something from the Roe v. Wade decision? Government intrusion on a woman's rights to privacy will not be tolerated. The political debate continues for 50 years. Nobody really cares about the outcome of a woman's pregnancy. The important thing is to keep the dialogue going for political purposes.

You must be thinking of those B*Mers and A****as who executed more than forty people during their i**********ns.

From Roe vs. Wade I learned how far ideologues will go to twist The Constitution into something it wants.

BTW, DASHY, do you know how many women were dying annually before Roe from a******ns? During the 1960s, it was less than 250, far less that the 3,000 Bernard Nathanson said that he pullled out of the air for NARAL. I've tried to find out how many are dying due to legal a******ns, several times, through the CDC, and couldn't find the figure.

Oh BTW, Roe was written by Richard Nixon's third choice for an empty seat.

And have you ever seen abortuses? You ought to do a search and see.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Rose42 wrote:

You - and other pro deathers - forget about the right of the innocent life.

The vast majority of the time anortions are done for convenience.

Yes, and the justification for legalized a******n has changed over the years.

And thank you Rose42.

DASHY

crazylibertarian wrote:

You must be thinking of those B*Mers and A****as w... (show quote)

Why do you keep pretending to care about the outcome of a woman's pregnancy. That debate is a football for politicians to play with. They have been playing that game for 50 years. How about giving some attention to the 11 million children in the United States who live in "food insecure" homes. You might want to check out "Empty Bowls Fundraisers" for a chance to contribute in your community.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

DASHY wrote:

Why do you keep pretending to care about the outcome of a woman's pregnancy. That debate is a football for politicians to play with. They have been playing that game for 50 years. How about giving some attention to the 11 million children in the United States who live in "food insecure" homes. You might want to check out "Empty Bowls Fundraisers" for a chance to contribute in your community.

And you might try looking at some pictures of abortuses and addressing the point that the fetus/embryo is alive. Why do you pro-deathers keep pretending it's not alive.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

DASHY wrote:

Row v. Wade decision had nothing to do with science. It talked about not allowing government intrusion on a woman's right to privacy. For the last 50 years or so, political debaters wanted to talk about science. Any progress?

C*****e c****e comes to mind. C***D as well.

But, us on the other side of the field deny science.
Am I correct?

Your argument, and position on this could be challenged in so many ways. But, you're a waste of time, and bandwidth.

DotsMan

DASHY wrote:

Pro Life v. Pro Death discussions are beside the p... (show quote)

I always almost have to "giggle" when someone tries to justify something by quoting one sentence out of the Bible.
That statement is from John 8:7, but to properly understand it you have to read the whole context, John chapter 8 verses 1 thru 11. You will find:

1. The scribes and Pharisees were trying to get Jesus to do something that they could use against Him. Verse 6

2. He showed them that they were just as guilty as she was. Therefore they had no right to accuse her. Verse 7

3. Then the part that those who love to quote the last phrase of verse 8 always ignore. Verse 11 last phrase. Jesus said, "Go and SIN NO MORE."
T***slated into today's English: "I'll forgive you this time, but don't do it again."

martsiva

A baby`s heartbeat can be detected at 7 weeks and the last I knew stopping the heart of a human by force was called murder! Anyone want to dispute these facts??

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

crazylibertarian wrote:

I am under no obligation to respond to you but again challenge you to debate the science.

What science is that, the science of denial? Where you're carrying a life inside you, then you get to decide the outcome for that life as well as your own. You don't get to choose another woman's life or that inside her. To bad but that's just the way it is. Or put another way, "that's life".

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

crazylibertarian wrote:

And it's marriage that protects the woman from the man walking away.

Disprove that.

Not really. Many men walk away until they're tracked down & forced to pay support. Sometimes, those forced to stay in a marriage murder the child & mother.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

Roamin' Catholic wrote:

I too believe the pre-born have rights and that th... (show quote)

Also to give them v****g rights. They will probably v**e Republican. Couple problems, one having to show an ID (the result of all the new Republican legislature passed bills to restrict v****g) & second, the age thing.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

crazylibertarian wrote:

Pro-lifers do try to help everyone DASHY. To suggest otherwise is a myth propagated by pro-deathers

An embryo becomes a fetus at about 10 weeks by which point a heart beat has been detectable for about 4 weeks.

A newborn baby turns to parents' voices rather than strange ones, indicating that it has already learned something.

Does that include non-citizens and democrats?

Roamin' Catholic Loc: luxurious exile

Tiptop789 wrote:

Prove the fetus wants to live in this crazy world? A dumb argument

Of course a fetus wants to avoid pain. When the hemostat grabs for the limb the fetus recoils. When the cutting begins the fetus writhes in agony. This is seen through the use of ultrasound equipment and is part of the a******nist training.

Roamin' Catholic Loc: luxurious exile

DASHY wrote:

... Pro life movements should aim to help all people, not just the questionable future life of a "pre-born."

Absolutely agree DASHY!

This is what Christianity teaches, that all human life is sacred from conception to natural death and every moment between. And for unwanted pregnancy, the mother needs and deserves a high level of pre and postnatal support and continued support in house keeping, career and emotional health all through life. If the father/husband cannot do this, the Christian churches want to provide support.

Just because some political conservatives that are pro-life oppose some social programs, doesn't mean that "no one cares about the child after birth".

Far from it. Christianity has elements of both conservativism and liberalism while being totally against a******n, except to literally save the life of the mother.