Big Lies for Abortion >>MOD WARNING<<

'Fraid not, it clearly says "Donaldson was also convicted of second degree murder in the death of Crider's unborn child."

 

You're afraid, OK, I'll post it here:

WHY would I retract my statement. Poster claimed a person was charged with murder for "kicking a woman in the stomach"....that is NOT murder....

YOU are just moving the goalposts for your CONVENIENCE (convenience, a thing which you don't want anyone else to use)


This Donaldson was convicted of murder NOT of kicking someone in the stomach...

That charge of murder came because of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. That's because Donaldson, like Anti-Choicers, took away the woman's choice. He took away part of her she wanted.

YUP, the woman decides, only she can give consent or not...

BTW, the UVVA has a clause saying it has nothing to do with abortion.



You might be afraid of post #47, that also sets it straight.

 

I was addressing post #48. The convictions in both of the examples you were given, were nothing to do with consent, they made no mention of consent whatsoever.

Here it is again-

"Donaldson was also convicted of second degree murder in the death of Crider's unborn child."

 

These distinctions are not a "scientific" terminology issue. They are all human. The giraffe and house analogy you used will never be one in the same.

Yes it is. Its a dehumanizing tactic to make you feel better about killing it off.

Yeah, sorry about the misspelling.

Usually executions are rendered on those who kill others. In war, killing is protection of ones own life.

Dehumanize it again. There is no distinction between "fetus" and "someone".

So, right there you show how you don't consider it a human. Thanks for confirming my original assertion.

And yes, there are many times where ones life or body is utilized by another. Doctors have an obligation to treat. Military have an obligation to fight. Pregnant women have an obligation to incubate. A doctor might have gone through school and treat some people, but they are forced to treat those who they may have a moral objection to treat. The military may have signed up to support and defend the nation, but not all of them are making a choice to die for the country or even fight in morally objectionable wars. They made the choices that led to the end game if it so happened to come to those conclusions. Sex is the precursor to pregnancy.

What makes "not feeding it after birth" and not feeding it in the womb any different? Why does passing through the magic hole grant the fetus/baby powers over the mother to force her to help it grow? Allowing it to die after birth is murder. Having someone kill it before the magic hole is fine by you. Why?

Its essentially what it is. Once the fetus passes through the vagina or incision, they are magically imbued with rights according to you. Its the "magic hole".

uh, nope. The woman can live and so can the baby. That's pretty equal. You however have said its not "someone", its a fetus. Like say you are not "someone", you are a poster on a forum. Guess if you aren't "someone" and just a "poster", someone can kill you anytime they like with no repercussions.

But you just said there is "no right to life"?

Deadly force only if you fear for your, or your family's lives are at stake. I cant shoot you for running away with my TV.

And driving your car at any time is potentially harmful. Taking a breath is potentially harmful. Do you mash up and blend all your food just because you might choke on something solid? That doesn't mean you get to kill another human for things that "could" be harmful.

"Women giving birth is like cattle?" News flash, human women have always given birth, its not a new thing, so it isn't dehumanizing them.

I have the right to seek aide, yes. I don't have the right to kill someone who may have taken my attention off the task at hand.

Avoidance.

"Cells" huh? Not a "human", just cells? Well, isn't that nice and dehumanizing of the baby yet again.

And? What if no one wanted to take care of the baby? If the doctors chose not to care for the baby, they'd go to jail. If the mother chose not to feed the baby and it died, she'd go to jail. Are you saying just because she is the sole person who can sustain that life till a certain point, she can chose to kill that life on a whim for any reason? That's a very selfish philosophy you got there. She chose to do the action that leads to pregnancy, so she gets to kill the child that had zero choice in being conceived.

No one is being forced to die for the life of a child. Although pregnancy comes with risks of death to mother, its very seldom now with the advances in technology and just a red herring for you to use to justify killing a baby before it passes through the magic hole of rights.

I specifically said...naturally speaking...for a reason.

But I would still have to face the consequences of my previous actions that landed me in jail.

Let me finish that for you
....to life.

Just because you are pregnant, doesn't mean you will die. That's not a 100%, 50%, or even .018% of women dying in US. But over 1,000,000 babies are killed each year from abortions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...f7df96-d229-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html

 

Thanks for clarifying the moronic argument of "no one said its not human". So I should have said, "you don't believe it is A human" and there for you deny its basic right to life. Again, dehumanizing it.

There are many special laws that put restrictions on what an adult can and cant do with any child under a certain age. Why is killing a baby under a certain age still acceptable just because of the position its in? How is killing someone that had zero choice of the circumstances its in, ie needing to live off another, justified? But I get it, the left cant tell people on welfare to get a job, but they will tell a baby they need to die.

Yes, that is true. If I wreck out in the boonies, I am SOL for being dumb enough to do such a thing. If I am in the city and wreck, I am under obligation to pay for the cost of the medical treatment I may incur. But I cant force someone to die for me to be treated.

 

Here's post #47 :

Again this is to do with consent, the woman did not consent to the attack by the man .. now find one where the woman DID consent (if you can). Perhaps I could suggest you read the UVVA type laws that allow this type of conviction, you will find that they all contain something along the lines of the following;

c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution&#8212;

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn...f_Violence_Act

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution&#8212;of any woman with respect to her unborn child. """""""

 

Notice none of these "pro-life" respondents....


participated in my OP premised "Even the 'pro-lifers' know they'll never get abortion banned"?

 

Let's cut through your crap about your pet word, "dehumanizing".

I do NOT have to dehumanize anything. Because I fully 100% believe in women's right to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever.

Repeat: I do NOT need to dehumanize anything.

Forcing women to give birth and saying they HAVE to because they have the organs IS dehumanizing women to the level of animals. Women are humans who can think. YOU want them to be dehumanized to the level of broodstock by insisting they give birth like cattle.

Either you don't want to see this or can't.


Murders and/or enemies are INCONVENIENT so we kill them.


You: """

.


They STILL have a CHOICE.

You: ""Are you saying just because she is the sole person who can sustain that life till a certain point, she can chose to kill that life on a whim for any reason?""

Yes! Although you are on track denigrating women by saying they do it on a whim.


You: "" That's a very selfish philosophy you got there. ""

So? When has selfish been made illegal? I take YOU have never done a selfish act in your life?
And why is selfish wrong? It means thinking of yourself first, something most humans do....but it's wrong if women do it according to you....

YOU:""She chose to do the action that leads to pregnancy""

No, she chose to have sex. Even if it leads to pregnancy there is no law against having sex

You: ""so she gets to kill the child that had zero choice in being conceived.""

No, she gets to kill the fetus she doesn't want.

Could you explain how a fetus could have a choice? It can't.


Whether YOU agree with science or not every pregnancy carries the risk of death and the certainty of physical damage...you, along with every other Anti-Choicer , have NEVER proven otherwise.

The low numbers of women who die from pregnancy and child birth don't matter IF you're the woman whose life is in danger or you're the woman who died.....how lucky for you that you don't have to face that...

 

Oh, I agree. The left have dehumanized preborn babies and propagated abortion as "women's freedom" to well. But then again, it wasn't by popular belief that abortion should be legal in the first place, it was only through activist judges that the left pushed though their eugenics project.

 

Legal authority yes, moral authority no. Abortion for convenience is nothing but murder of an innocent human life, supported by the mother, but not the mother. Two lives with equal rights to life, morally. You consider the unborn baby less than a person. It is absolutely human life, and one cannot justifiably suggest that it takes dehumanizing to a lessor being to support abortion.

 

I agree, activist judiciary legislating is wrong.

But I don't buy your tag line. Socialism is all about the leaders, not about the enslaved workers who don't get to share in their labor beyond a survival mode.

 

None of what you have quoted above is of any relevance to what we have been discussing so far.

Answer this question, what is the person who kicked the pregnant woman, convicted of?

 

Whose "moral authority? Yours?

YES, abortion is a CONVENIENCE..... do YOU do everything in your life as INconveniently as possible??!!! WHY?

You say "equal rights" NO, you want the fetus to have MORE rights than anyone else, the right to use another's body to sustain their life.

A fetus is human life, I never said anything different!


AND I do NOT have to "dehumanize" it as I believe women have the right to have an abortion for any reason.

YOU dehumanize women by insisting they are nothing more than broodstock ...

- - - Updated - - -

Nice try at a dodge but it won't work. It has everything to do with what we're discussing.

You: ""Answer this question, what is the person who kicked the pregnant woman, convicted of? ""

NOT kicking a woman in the stomach as you claimed!

 

<Rule 2/3>

They pose a clear threat to lives of others and have demonstrated that action. No preborn baby has ever willfully killed one mother, let alone been a threat to multiple women.

Did the baby?

I have never been selfish enough to kill a baby, but I guess only women are allowed to be that selfish right?

Exactly, that is the action that leads to pregnancy. Jumping off a very tall building or bridge leads to death. Running into traffic on the interstate leads to death. Playing the lottery can lead to winning the jackpot. There are actions that have inevitable outcomes given enough chances. The only person that had zero say or action was the baby, but they are the only one that dies.

Exactly. And if that preborn baby is being killed, and never had a choice to be conceived, why do you find that "ok"? Its either cause you dehumanized the preborn baby, or you believe in the magic tunnel that bestows rights onto people after they pass through it.

I haven't disagreed with this statement yet, I just find it funny how scared you are of a .0018% chance of death from when you are much more likely to die from a car wreck.

No, I am the man that is forced to sign up for the draft. But using HRC logic, its men who are the real victims in child birth deaths. They lose their mothers, sisters or wives. Like I said, if you want abortion because there is the slightest chance you will die from a pregnancy, then I hope you don't drive, eat food not made into a smoothie, certainly not overweight, or even alive to begin with since given a long enough time line, our rate of survival falls to 0%.

- - - Updated - - -

<Rule 3>

 

Well done, that's exactly right, it was NOT for kicking a woman in the stomach.

Now lets see if you have the guts to answer the question or will try to dodge it again.

What was the person who kicked the pregnant woman, convicted of?

 

"""Well done, that's exactly right, it was NOT for kicking a woman in the stomach."""

But YOU claimed it was.......you're confused....and have no point....

 

Its always "not my fault" when those who want to infringe upon other people's rights.

 

What your wife said she "knew" has nothing to do with scientific facts...and how much a woman wants a baby has nothing to do with whether a woman gets pregnant or not.

 

Here is what amazes me most about abortions.

Women upon learning they are pregnant, state as if it is fact, she is pregnant with a baby.

She has yet to claim she is pregnant with a fetus.

Then she either wants her baby or denies it.

Those doing the denying, thankfully not most women, then feel safe to abort the child.

Sure, it is human. This is what a child is. A child still forming, yet still a child. Why do the deniers hate the word child?

 

Now you're just trolling again.

And again you refuse to answer the question. Shows I have won the argument and that you have nothing left, ie, you have no point.

Where did I claim it was for kicking a woman in the stomach. Quote the text. I'll bet you can't.

 

You don't believe that a child is a child?

Yes, I recall you making such claims.

My ex wife did inform she made sure she got pregnant.

 

..............happy to......

 

I am shocked you said my former wife infringed on my rights. However that be, she did infringe on my rights. I did not then want a child.

 

I was bored with your lies the last time you stuck your nose in here......I never said a child isn't a child.....if all you have is lies you must not have any good arguments.

...and ,no, no woman can make herself get pregnant....that's balderdash....