Abortion is "the same as killing a child"???

You DO need to learn the quote feature to indicate who it is you're addressing.
And if you don't want someone "on your back", don't post, or just address their questions.

 

I do know this quote feature, BUT it only works about 25% of the time. Even after I have typed a lengthy response, it always seems to give a warning that my response must be increased to more than 6 words before it is posted. Thus, I simply copy what I've written, cancel the "reply with quote", click on "reply" and paste my comment there. The site NEVER asks me to increase that exact same response when it is submitted as a "reply" versus a "reply with quote". And just think about your own words "And if you don't want someone "on your back", don't post, or just address their questions." If I don't post, are you crazy enough to think that I would have any questions to answer? You don't have to answer this question, as it is only rhetorical. It just shows someone's lack of understanding as to what they wrote.

 

If you look really closely I post an "or " in that sentence.


Hit "Reply to Post" first , then write your response.

 

Why .. because you cannot debate the issue, because you have nothing to debate with, and there is always the ignore option for those who want to run away, and of you think I am 'on your back' then report my comments and let the MOD's decide.

 

I did see your "or" in that sentence, but I guess you are saying that if I address their questions, like I would be dumb enough to think that IF I addressed their questions, there would be no additional response from them.
And, by the way, there is NO "reply to Post" or are you referring to "blog this post"? I only see "Reply" and "Reply with Quote".

 

None of the above, just because of the simple fact that I choose not to debate with any sub-ntelligent individuals.

 

Firstly, any educated pro-lifer is fine with the morning after pill if taken properly (i.e., the morning after), which is an emergency contraceptive pill, not an abortion pill.
Secondly, emotional reactions within the moment are not determiners for rights. Here's another hypothetical: There is a building burning down. Within the building is your 4-year-old daughter and a million dollars. The million dollars will go to charity (if not burned) which will save thousands of African children's lives. You can only save one. Which do you choose? Obviously, any sane person would choose their daughter, but this does not mean that African children have less of a right to life than your daughter.

 

and yet you still reply.

Never mind I suspect your pets will be at the same level as your own when it comes to debating, in fact they would probably still walk all over you.

always amuses me when someone runs away when the paint themselves into a corner .. classic fail on your part.

 

Oh good! You FINALLY found it!!!

 

Interesting hypothetical, reminds me of another one;

A fertility clinic is on fire inside is a single unconscious 5 year old child and 1,000 fertilized ovum, you can only save one .. which do you choose?

I think what Gorn was trying to do was to show that the mantra of 'person at conception' trotted out by some pro-lifers isn't really that important to them in some situations.

BTW: would you care to provide your reasoning that there is such a thing as a right to life?