There is Everything Wrong with Abortion

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah. And they've already disabled your account for violating the TOS.

This really is your life, isn't it?
OMG

STILL OCB wrote:

<quoted text>Do you want to know why I thought that perhaps my posts were not showing?
That's because you've not responded to any of my posts citing that legal abortion has been determined by the SCOTUS to be a Constitutional RIGHT.
Why is that that you haven't responded to any of those posts?
Seriously- why haven't you?
YOU first mentioned the "beauty of America", so why no comment as to the legal right to abortion being protected by our Constitution- which is what makes America so "beautiful"?

Because it's a stupid argument, and you don't even understand it. I often ignore posts when the content is so blatantly false, it will take a considerable amount of typing to even attempt to explain it to you. Mostly because I realize even if I try, you likely STILL won't understand it.

First, NO, SCOTUS didn't declare abortion to be a constitutional right. They declared it to be covered under the right to privacy. They also FURTHER declared that there comes a point in that pregnancy when the care of the fetus must be taken into consideration as well. They established a trimester system as a point of reference, but later changed even that. They stated that this date is fluid, and as technology grows, the point of viability moves. They acknowledge viability as the turning point.

Technology has grown. James Gill was born at 21 weeks and is healthy. Viability gets closer to the date of conception. The laws change accordingly.

Seriously. At least attempt to understand the position you are supporting.

STILL OCB wrote:

<quoted text>No- they haven't.

Yeah? Why the new name, then?

STILL OCB wrote:

<quoted text>And it doesn't define what "convenience" is!
And you know why that is? Because there IS no absolute definition as to what is convenient or inconvenient fore EVERY SINGLE PERSON.
I'm sorry this is something that you can't comprehend- that being that what determines what is convenient or inconvenient is not black and white and what one person deems as convenient or inconvenient can often be very different from what another person deems to be convenient or inconvenient.

Yes. The dictionary's definition of "convenience" doesn't define "convenience".

I swear. A top comedy team couldn't make this stuff up.

Lyndi wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh look.
Here comes the posse.

I just think it's amazing how one person can wipe the floor with all of your butts in such a melodic fashion.

LightForce wrote:

<quoted text>
They are so confused, it's like they are in a brain-fog. Embryo and fetus are both clearly defined as a human baby in every dictionary that I have seen. Even in the ones that they use for an example.
Unreal.

Do you think your legislators and the SCOTUS are pouring over WEBTERS DICTIONARY to interpret the Constitution, you dolt? Seriously, do you think they keep a pocket copy in their pants, under their robes?
And when you're sucking up to someone, try not to make it so obvious.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. The dictionary's definition of "convenience" doesn't define "convenience".
I swear. A top comedy team couldn't make this stuff up.

Says the guy who keeps pulling definitions of "baby" from a dictionary.

((({Boing))))

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
I've answered that question half a dozen times. Repeating it as though I haven't is just a distraction from the fact that your argument fell apart long ago, so you've focused on me instead of IT.
Try reading.

Again, my argument is very solid and you've yet to refute it, sorry. As you would say - deflection. You can't answer the question with a question. All you've stated is that why would you adopt a child that isn't your responsibility? That isn't an answer. So I'll keep waiting for one.

LightForce wrote:

<quoted text>
I just think it's amazing how one person can wipe the floor with all of your butts in such a melodic fashion.

tsk tsk Lightforce.
I know your temper better than you do and it's showing.

Go hug buck.
You'll feel better.

Lyndi wrote:

<quoted text>
Says the guy who keeps pulling definitions of "baby" from a dictionary.
((({Boing))))

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that post went clean over your head.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's been happening, step by step. Denying it doesn't change it.

I haven't seen that at all. In fact, almost every piece of legislation that has tried to enact some kind of prohibition of abortion has been denied. Women are still receiving abortions every single day in this country, as much as (if not more), than previous years thanks to the ability for women to educate themselves. So I don't see where there has been any advancement in the cause to end abortion.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
It will be, for all the reasons I've previously stated

And I've pointed out that it can never be criminalized. So, it won't be for all the reasons I've stated and you can't refute.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Stating it is so doesn't make it so.

Ugh...the tedium of your responses is funny to me. You have nothing to say, nothing to offer but "I know I am but what are you?" responses that I would expect from a child. This is not meant to be insulting, as I'm sure you will take it, but honestly - I could very easily say the same to you.

Um, let's give it a try -

You: "Abortion will be illegal some day."
Me: "Stating it will be won't make it so."
You: "Women who have abortions are murderers."
Me: "Stating they are doesn't make it so."
You: "Someday women will be put in jail for having abortions."
Me: "Stating they will won't make it so."
You: "Abortion is wrong."
Me: "Stating it is doesn't make it so."

See how dreadfully indirect and deflective those responses are?

Mpnf1979 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, my argument is very solid and you've yet to refute it, sorry. As you would say - deflection. You can't answer the question with a question. All you've stated is that why would you adopt a child that isn't your responsibility? That isn't an answer. So I'll keep waiting for one.

Keep waiting. When you come up with another poor defense of your position that you'd like to toss out there instead of talking about me, I'd love to debate it. Until then, whether or not I would adopt the 50 million unborn babies killed by their mothers is irrelevant.

STILL OCB wrote:

<quoted text>It's a stupid argument? Why? Because YOU say so.
And really- don't start with semantics.
And who ever claimed that there doesn't come a point in gestation when the fetus (good to see you're FINALLY using the correct word!) must be taken into consideration?
It's been posted here countless times that pro-choice does not mean being pro LTAs UNLESS the woman's life is in grave danger and/or there is something seriously wrong with the fetus.
But when the MAJORITY of abortions are performed- within 12 weeks of conception with the MAJORITY of those taking place within the first 9 weeks of conception- no- the fetus is NOT taken into consideration.
And no....viability is NOT getting closer to the "date" of conception- as IF anyone knows the actual DATE they conceive- they do NOT.
So what are you suggesting? That fetuses are becoming SUPER fetuses and all on their own are becoming sentient and viable within the first 12 weeks of having been conceived???
I DO understand the position I am supporting. You repeatedly stating that I and others do not is- what's that term YOU like to use?
Oh yeah- it's "BLATANTLY FALSE".

"sigh" This is why I rarely respond to you. When I do, you just can't grasp the material presented.

No. We aren't getting super babies. We're getting advanced technology. James Gill wouldn't have survived without it. If you understood the SCOTUS decision, which you obviously don't, you'd see they recognize technology as a contributing factor.

Mpnf1979 wrote:

<quoted text>
And I've pointed out that it can never be criminalized. So, it won't be for all the reasons I've stated and you can't refute.

As I've pointed out, and supported, it absolutely will. In fact, some states already criminalize killing an unborn baby.

It's coming.

Mpnf1979 wrote:

<quoted text>
Ugh...the tedium of your responses is funny to me. You have nothing to say, nothing to offer but "I know I am but what are you?" responses that I would expect from a child. This is not meant to be insulting, as I'm sure you will take it, but honestly - I could very easily say the same to you.
Um, let's give it a try -
You: "Abortion will be illegal some day."
Me: "Stating it will be won't make it so."
You: "Women who have abortions are murderers."
Me: "Stating they are doesn't make it so."
You: "Someday women will be put in jail for having abortions."
Me: "Stating they will won't make it so."
You: "Abortion is wrong."
Me: "Stating it is doesn't make it so."
See how dreadfully indirect and deflective those responses are?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. The difference is, I supported my position.

LightForce wrote:

<quoted text>
They are so confused, it's like they are in a brain-fog. Embryo and fetus are both clearly defined as a human baby in every dictionary that I have seen. Even in the ones that they use for an example.
Unreal.

I guess you missed my post with MANY definitions and not one of them said "baby".
One example:
em·bry·o (mbr-)
n. pl. em·bry·os
1.
a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
2.
a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
3. Botany The minute, rudimentary plant contained within a seed or an archegonium.
4. A rudimentary or beginning stage: "To its founding fathers, the European [Economic] Community was the embryo of the United States of Europe" (Economist).
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/embryo
fe·tus (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus

I don't see them say it's an unborn "baby" at all. And that's just ONE definition site. Try to scroll back, and you will find MANY definitions of the noun "fetus", and not a single mention of the word "baby".

Orange County blues wrote:

<quoted text>Better? Happy now?
BTW, unregistered users to not HAVE an account, so therefore, there is no account to be "disabled".

That's not the account you had. That's just writing in a name. Heck, I can do that.

Post from your account.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
And I'll keep answering. It's irrelevant. Your argument has failed so miserably, you've chosen to abandon it and focus on me instead. It's a poor tactic used by those who can't defend their position.
You're attempting to make me the topic, not abortion, because you've failed on that topic

I've prevailed over you and you can't stand it. You keep saying my argument has failed but you have yet to refute any part of it. None. Show me one post where you've been able to prove that anything I've said is false. All you've come back with is "one day it will" or "hopefully someday it'll be criminalized" or "we're working on it." Those aren't legitimate responses to anything and they surely haven't disproved the logic I've put forth.

Sorry, but you've lost this one. Miserably. You cannot and will not answer those questions because you can't.

You also won't adopt a child because either you don't have the money you claim you do or you're not as passionate about this cause as you say you are.

Plain and simple, you won't adopt a child because you're not worried about those children after they're born. You've stated nothing about how these children should be treated after they're born. Your focus is solely on the "dirt bag mother" who failed to be responsible by getting pregnant even though she didn't want a child.

You also do nothing but yap on this forum and maybe anyone unlucky enough to listen to your pedestrian arguments. You aren't an activist for the pro-life movement and you honestly, don't really care that much to involve yourself other than posting on this thread.

You're a fraud because you're conviction is limited. And you're mad because you're exposed. Understandably so...if I came on here and boasted that I had all this money, yet am too selfish to use it for anyone other than myself even when I know there are children out there who I believe should be taken away from their mothers and forced into foster care, I would be embarrassed too.