How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

No it is a POTENTIAL living human being. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called a zygote.If it is a living human being remove it and let it exist that is if you could find it with a microscope
I don’t know what you mean when you ask if I support the right to kill non-zygotes.

 

The It was some ill informed person here
your implication that” Renee doesn’t think government pays for an abortion” exclude you from thinking that.

 

For most of them life begins at conception and ends at birth

 

It's a simple question.

If you know what a zygote is, you can answer the question.

 

Lets call it a precious human being and insist it be born. Is it now okay to throw it in a dumpster? Babies cannot survive on their own, so a minimum commitment of 18 years per baby is required. Where do you propose we get people to commit?

 

Wait, you don’t in fact think that government pays for abortion do you?

 

"25-30 of parenting?"

Awesome!

 

It is not murder according to the law, yes. If a law was passed that banned abortion, stating that, "women do not have the right to their own bodies" would that stop you from believing that women have the right to their own bodies? The law is irrelevant to beliefs.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
That is completely and totally irrelevant to rights and laws. Anti-Choicers can rant and babble all they want but abortion is not murder and they have never proven it is except in their " minds".

""The law is irrelevant to beliefs.""

That is exactly what I said in the post of mine you quoted....maybe you should READ the posts you quote first...

Your example is flawed since it is illegal to take away people's right to their own bodies.

 

Yes, I support cutting down trees, that’s killing a non zygote..

 

Read the Hyde amendment ..federal funds do not pay for elective abortions

 

Then wouldn't you say that you were a little too general in this post?:

 

You could've also said that abortion is legal. So does something have to be illegal in order for someone to have a moral position against it? You're obsessed with legal arguments aren't you.

 

.

I said what I said.

No, something doesn't have to be illegal in order for someone to have a moral position against it , but we weren't discussing "moral positions".

Of course, they are more important than people's feelings and/or "morals".


Here's the uncherry picked post of mine you quoted:
""The law is irrelevant to beliefs.""

That is exactly what I said in the post of mine you quoted....maybe you should READ the posts you quote first...

Your example is flawed since it is illegal to take away people's right to their own bodies."""""

 

Wouldn't you say you were a lot picky in that statement ?

I knew exactly what she meant.


Did you have a point?

 

We are discussing abortion! Are you seriously saying that moral positions are not relevant when talking about abortion?

Why the hell would I need to respond to this? THAT IS MY LINE!

What the hell could I have said in reply to this? I suppose that I could've said that I DO read posts first, but I didn't think there was any need to.

As in the EXACT line which I quoted in my previous reply? It looks like it is YOU that needs to read posts first before replying.

 

No, AS USUAL you are putting words that weren't there into a post.


I posted : something doesn't have to be illegal in order for someone to have a moral position against it , but we weren't discussing "moral positions".

 

"We weren't discussing "moral positions?" "WE" or YOU?

 

Why do you always seem so confused???

 

I'll make it simple for you. You weren't talking about a moral position. I WAS!

 

Wow, you got that "Big Point" straightened out....now, if it only had any meaning...

 

Do you have kids?

 

No....abortions are not covered. The poster thought they were...but you knew that

 

I'm confused. You have only said that ELECTIVE abortions are not covered.

 

I do not, but what does that have to do with my confusion over "25-30 of parenting?"