Against Abortions mean you are Pro-Life

There is no point in refuting junk science paid for by the abortion mill industry
which is nothing more than propaganda.

You still owe me an apology so excuse me if I refuse to respond. I don't feel
the need to give you anything because you resort to insults.

 

If the fetus doesn't object, no one else should.

Women's lives are saved by abortion. It is extremely rare for a woman's life to be endangered by abortion.

That is not laws regulating abortion, but laws requiring sanitary conditions in facilities which serve the public.

You would think from your posts that women are dying like flies from abortion when the truth is that abortion is fourteen times safer than childbirth. If you truly have ANY concern or respect for women, please lobby for improved conditions for childbirth. The USA comparison of maternal mortality with other counties is disgraceful.

 

We've all heard the stupid talking point statistics that are totally made up by
the allies of the abortion mill industries. Here is a statistic for you - a woman
is 100% more likely to die from an abortion than a woman who decided not
to get an abortion.

 

In other words you can't, your withdraw from adult deabte is noted.

It is you that owes the whole forum an apology for wrongfully asserting that NARAL has policies that support forced abortion which was so easily shown to be nothing but BS.

 

Here is another pointless statistic for you - a woman is 100% more likely to die through child-birth than a woman who is not pregnant .. just as absurd as the one you posted.

 

Well, aren't you perceptive??? However the woman who decided not to get an abortion is more likely to die in childbirth. Don't you think a woman should be able to choose which danger she faces?

 

I think that by my history of what I have posted it would be quite
obvious that no, I am not in favor of women having the right to
end the life of their unborn children.

 

From your history I see you don't care about the life of the woman, just the fetus..

 

Being the only person that brings up the deaths of women
caused by abortion, the long term effects on women's health
and reproductive abilities and health, the abuse of women
via forced abortions, the dangers posed to women from
the abortion mill industry and questionable abortion practitioners;
being the only one who seems to care that half of the unborn
victims of abortion are female, or about the abuse of women
by means of forced abortions, or about the long term mental
and physical health effects of abortion on women, depression
and suicide of women after abortions, I think I have shown more
concern about the life of the women that the pro-abortion advocates
on this forum.

 

The Pro-Life lies and disingenuous use of language are truly fit for the garbage can.

They can not seem to open mouth without misusing the noun form of the word "Human - a human, a living human" with the descriptive adjective form
- Human live, Human cell, Human feces.

The movement consists of little more than fallacy and disingenuous falsehoods.

Junk indeed.

 

Science is science. I had a thread that asked one simple question. Almost
all liberal supporters of abortion on demand either could not answer the
question at all, or were vague or non-committal. The question was, "When
does life begin?" So, if liberals have such a poor understanding of science,
or completely turn their backs on well established scientific understanding,
then who are the true science deniers?

 

I have refuted your falsehoods in relation to "Science" numerous times.

I write a post on the use of disingenuous language ... and you respond with obfuscative language.

Thank's for proving my point.

Science claims that life come from life. That animate does not come inanimate.

You have not presented any science that is contrary to this.

Your claim is a joke.

 

How is it not disingenuous and obfuscating to change the argument? The strawman
argument once again presented, avoiding the question "when does life begin?" by
changing the question to "when did life begin?"

 

ROFL .. I did no such thing but .... what is the difference between the two questions ?

Regardless. Science states that animate does not come from inanimate.
Regardless. Science states that the sperm is alive so ... Life begins prior to conception.

What is hopelessly pathetic is you claiming that the contrary is "established science"

 

Of course nobody is claiming that life begins from inanimate objects. Strawman.
Of course nobody is claiming that sex cells are not alive. Strawman.

The question when it comes to the question of abortion is when does life begin
for each and every individual person. The science is undeniable. It's irrefutable.
We know when life begins. Why don't you just admit it? Why can't you answer
the question?

 

What you have shown about your "concern" is that it is focused on controlling women. Don't think for a minute that we are fooled into believing that the welfare of women is your concern. It has been pointed out repeatedly that abortion is safe for women and does not cause physical or mental effects that are damaging to women, and still you protest. Women can decide for themselves what risks are acceptable to them, thank you very much.

 

I get my information from women who have experienced these things
as a result of abortions. Simply claiming that it is safe for women
and doesn't cause physical or mental harm goes against common
sense. The whole point of ending a woman's pregnancy is to
control her reproduction. It's the pro-abortion people who are
trying to control women, and the population.

I am concerned for the welfare of women, but also of the unborn,
something that never factors into the equation for the "Pro-choicers".

 

I'm an Atheist and Socialist and fairly open to adults having free choice however in the case of abortion I consider it rather destructive to society and unnecessary on two grounds. On the first each child is a future working unit in most cases they will be productive adults once born and raised at some expense to the government but often bring out more output then the cost put into them so abortion is like throwing away some of a vein of high grade iron ore or an oil deposit their lifetime economic output as a worker. On the second birth control is cheap and should be in my mind readily available to everyone of child reproduction age for free or at a low cost.

So my position is to ban abortions unless for incest and rape (rare, and only for children and teens to young to safely have the child older than that they can always give the child up for adoption), to save the life of the mother (existing productive unit) and severe defect which is verified (any medical condition assured to end in the child's death when its young). I find those acceptable limitations especially since birth control in my position should be cheap for all and a teen citizen perhaps should get an injected or implanted birth control device once they hit puberty as policy, this done in public schools for free for all girls and boys when they develop similar options for them.

I don't care when life begins matters its the future viability of the offspring as a productive unit to have more children and work that matters.

 

Here's the cool thing...

PatriotNews is supporting a guy for President who, up til he decided to run, said he was "very pro-choice"....and even AFTER he decided to run praised Planned Parenthood and mentioned naming his sister to the Supreme Court...a judge who supports late-term abortion rights.


So PN's devotion to The Furor outweighs his supposed "principles" about abortion.

 

and yet ignores the even more deaths of women from child-birth

all of which have been shown to be rubbish

and yet you lied in asserting groups such as NARAL have policies supporting forced abortion.

Except you haven't produced anything other than anecdotal accounts, usually via biased pro-life sites.

The gender of the fetus is irrelevant, both male and female fetuses injure the female.

forced abortion is as bad as forced pregnancy, yet you support one of those.

All of which have been shown to be suspect to say the least, and not a single reputable organization agrees with you.

Not really because your concern is a facade, it has nothing to do with the life of the woman, it's all an act to get abortion banned so pro-lifers can force their will onto pregnant women.

 

It is an irrelevant question regardless of the answer.

 

More stupid excuses for performing abortions. Yes women
die in childbirth. Women die in car accidents too. That is
no reason to kill their offspring in the womb. And who exactly
is forcing women to get pregnant? Nobody. But many are
being forced to have abortions. The force being used against
women are from leftists who pressure women into giving up
their hopes of having a child by convincing them that it isn't
a child. But it is, and later they feel guilty, depressed and
suicidal. We are fighting to save lives, you are fighting to
perform abortions, which ends lives. We will always have the
high moral ground. Nobody's should have a right to end the
life of someone else's life.

 

"Nobody's should have a right to end the
life of someone else's life. "
Ignoring the obvious grammatical error....you don't believe this. You believe in exceptions to this statement. So do we.

 

Nobody should have a right to end the life of someone else.

There, better? And what exceptions are you talking about?