Abortion Advocates Make Me Sick

Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year.

Does this figure bother you as much?

 

Yes, I'm 100% pro "life", but not 100% anti-abortion. There are circumstances when abortion is necessary. I've stated that before, but you may not have been around here at the time.

 

That's a good question. I think they become babies when they become alive. I wish you would ask the question of JoeNation also.

 

Are you equating poor nutrition to abortion? Tragically, DUI drivers kill a lot of kids each year too, but I don't equate DUI drivers to abortion. Are you trying to play some sort of numbers game? Dead children, no matter the circumstances, are tragic.

 

Republicans in North Carolina should be applauded for putting the health of the mother at the forefront even though they have no choice but to let the baby die:

View attachment 1828

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/12/nc-house-approves-abortion-legislation/?test=latestnews

 

Absolutely the oldest trick in the baby-killers playbook...make it about religion & claim it's about a woman's choice as to what to do with her body. Why not argue the issue based on what it really is- the life or death of an unborn baby?

 

I have a better question. I thought the discussion was going pretty well until you completely ignored my post #13. You stated that it was the Constitution that gave you the authority to make decisions for a woman with regard to her own body. But I said correctly that the Supreme Court already decided on the constitutionality of abortion. So given that the Constitution doesn't seem to give you the authority to make decisions for any woman's body, where exactly does you authority to do so really come from? You must base your right to decide what a woman can and can't do with her own body on something and if it isn't the law and it isn't science or the medical profession, what is it?

 

View attachment 1830

 

WOW!! 1 cross in a sea of people proves opposition to abortion is based only on religious beliefs?
Who woulda thunk it?
Didn't the exposure of Gosnell's abortion mill cause you any concern?

 

How many images would you like me to post? Just give me a number.

View attachment 1831

 

I'm not denying people of faith oppose abortion, I'm saying "religion" isn't the only reason people oppose abortion. Most people I know, who oppose abortion, oppose it because they believe murder is wrong not because a church or a book tells them abortion is wrong. I know this is contrary to the far left radical's narrative but it's reality.

 

I would have loved to have heard you in 1857 regarding the Dred Scott Decision. You would probably have said something like, "Well, the Supreme Court says slavery is OK, so it must be. End of discussion".

You're saying the same thing regarding Roe v. Wade. I can hear you saying, "The Supreme Court has ruled that it's OK to commit homicide on human beings inside the womb, so it must be OK". Where's your conscience? Where's your sense of morality? You may have agreed with the Supreme Court in Dred Scott, but deep down you surely would have known that slavery was wrong even if the law said otherwise.

If you're basing your entire argument on what the Supreme Court has ruled, history has proven that the court can be and has been wrong before.

I'm basing my opinion on the Constitution and our right to life. The questions then become "When does life begin?" and "When does the government effectually secure that right?" I think even the Supreme Court would agree that we have a right to life. Do you disagree?

You advocate for the mother in allowing her to make the decision as to when to arbitrarily end a life. But, you won't even give your opinion as to when you think life begins. I certainly hope you don't advocate abortion after the being in the mother's womb is alive. Do you?

 

Great point!

 

Thats something I can understand and I appreciate the honest response. I'm pro choice, however, I feel there should be limits on that as well. There should be give and take on both sides.

 

"No, they're lazy...they should have worked harder and then they could eat better food."

...is the general answer a right-wingnut would think, if not say out-loud.

 

No, probably a result of abortion advocates trying to finish what they started. Isn't BO a leading proponent of post-birth abortion?

 

Well, we've killed 150 to 200 Pakistani kids in drone strikes. That's about a Sandy Hook every year for them.

 

We're at War. The alternative to drone-strikes is carpet-bombing.

Or, we could use mustard gas, as it's still in our arsenal.

Or, we could end Warring altogether.

Good luck with that last one.

 

I seem to remember that earlier on you were arguing that life did not necessarily equal a baby but that it didn't matter because the Declaration somehow established that "life" would be protected and even if fetuses weren't babies they were covered because they were somehow alive. But now you seem to be saying that just about anything related to a sperm and an egg that might conceivably be considered alive is a baby. Does this represent a shift in your thinking?

And does it apply even down to the sperm and egg themselves? Sperm cells are alive after a fashion. Are they babies? What about egg cells? Stem cells? Are they babies for your purposes? If Joe wants to jump in here, he's welcome. But it would be nice to have some clarification from you on your statement that "they" become babies when they become "alive".

 

We could maybe stop fighting the ones we don't need to fight and stop killing people who pose little or no threat to us and simply mind our own business. That would probably eliminate about 95% if our warring.