One thing we should ALL agree on: If you are anti abortion, you better be in love with birth control.

For the life of me I cannot understand why some pro lifers hate birth control.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Viability is a weak argument. The guy in a coma is not viable. You have already admitted he is a person. The fetus is every bit as "viable" as the guy in the coma.

The guy in the coma is not inside someone else.

This is irrelevant when you are talking about the BABY'S life. It did not ask to be put there. It should not be put to death because it is an inconvenience.

It's VERY relevant. It's the crux of the argument. The fact that the fetus didn't ask to be there doesn't change the fact that it is relying on position inside someone else's body for survival.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Posted by tangplay on 2/6/2019 4:42:00 PM (view original):
One thing we should ALL agree on: If you are anti abortion, you better be in love with birth control.

For the life of me I cannot understand why some pro lifers hate birth control.

They do?

Posted by tangplay on 2/6/2019 4:42:00 PM (view original):
One thing we should ALL agree on: If you are anti abortion, you better be in love with birth control.

For the life of me I cannot understand why some pro lifers hate birth control.

I don't think anyone but some catholics hate birth control.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Cutting off his genitals doesn't really solve that problem.

What if there's an accidental pregnancy and, due to a physical issue, the woman cannot safely carry a baby to term? OK with abortion then?

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Viability is a weak argument. The guy in a coma is not viable. You have already admitted he is a person. The fetus is every bit as "viable" as the guy in the coma.

The guy in the coma is not inside someone else.

This is irrelevant when you are talking about the BABY'S life. It did not ask to be put there. It should not be put to death because it is an inconvenience.

It's VERY relevant. It's the crux of the argument. The fact that the fetus didn't ask to be there doesn't change the fact that it is relying on position inside someone else's body for survival.

Not the baby's fault. The baby shouldn't be killed because it is an inconvenience for 9 months.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

This happened to a friend of mine. She was induced VERY early in her pregnancy (2nd trimester) because she was diagnosed with a brain tumor, and neither she nor the baby could survive with the baby inside of her. The baby lived less than a week. She held on for another year.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Viability is a weak argument. The guy in a coma is not viable. You have already admitted he is a person. The fetus is every bit as "viable" as the guy in the coma.

The guy in the coma is not inside someone else.

This is irrelevant when you are talking about the BABY'S life. It did not ask to be put there. It should not be put to death because it is an inconvenience.

It's VERY relevant. It's the crux of the argument. The fact that the fetus didn't ask to be there doesn't change the fact that it is relying on position inside someone else's body for survival.

Not the baby's fault. The baby shouldn't be killed because it is an inconvenience for 9 months.

Nothing is being decided based on fault. Fault is irrelevant. The decision is whose preference gets priority. The woman or the fetus living inside the woman?

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Cutting off his genitals doesn't really solve that problem.

What if there's an accidental pregnancy and, due to a physical issue, the woman cannot safely carry a baby to term? OK with abortion then?

I love have the pro-abortion side picks the most extreme, rare cases to justify making abortion legal in all cases. You are taking something that is the case in less than 1% of all abortions as your justification.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 3:37:00 PM (view original):
I am objective in this. Science tells us that it is a human being.

By 12 weeks, which is still in the first trimester, a fetus has a heartbeat, limbs, genitalia, all other vital organs and much more. This is a child. There is nothing inflammatory about calling it what it is. I didn't fall for anything. I respect science. This is what biology tells us.

Let me ask you a question. You have a guy who is in a coma and on a breathing machine. There is a strong likelihood that he will come out of that coma and be able to breathe on his own in, let's throw out a random time, 9 months. Does anyone have the right to kill this person? Why or why not?

12 weeks is very far from viable.....my understanding is that the fetus is still in formation....the brain is still unformed...it is taking shape but it is not a person yet.

The guy in a coma is far from viable as well. You never answered that part of my post.

The guy in the coma isn't living inside someone else.

Gino Vannelli was living inside himself. Does that count?

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

This happened to a friend of mine. She was induced VERY early in her pregnancy (2nd trimester) because she was diagnosed with a brain tumor, and neither she nor the baby could survive with the baby inside of her. The baby lived less than a week. She held on for another year.

That is very sad. I'm sorry for your loss.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Yeah but that doesn't solve for the fact that you have a pregnant rape victim.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Viability is a weak argument. The guy in a coma is not viable. You have already admitted he is a person. The fetus is every bit as "viable" as the guy in the coma.

The guy in the coma is not inside someone else.

This is irrelevant when you are talking about the BABY'S life. It did not ask to be put there. It should not be put to death because it is an inconvenience.

It's VERY relevant. It's the crux of the argument. The fact that the fetus didn't ask to be there doesn't change the fact that it is relying on position inside someone else's body for survival.

Not the baby's fault. The baby shouldn't be killed because it is an inconvenience for 9 months.

Nothing is being decided based on fault. Fault is irrelevant. The decision is whose preference gets priority. The woman or the fetus living inside the woman?

Life always takes priority. If you remember, it is one of our rights as Americans. It has been stripped away from millions upon millions due to a corrupt court ruling, but life always takes precedence.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Cutting off his genitals doesn't really solve that problem.

What if there's an accidental pregnancy and, due to a physical issue, the woman cannot safely carry a baby to term? OK with abortion then?

I love have the pro-abortion side picks the most extreme, rare cases to justify making abortion legal in all cases. You are taking something that is the case in less than 1% of all abortions as your justification.

Literally not what I'm doing. I've made my position very clear. I think the person that gets to decide if they grow another person inside them is the mother. No one else.

I'm just looking for your line. Because if you move off of "abortion is murder no exceptions," to something reasonable like "abortion can be allowed if X," then we can actually discuss this.