View Poll Results: Vote:

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, there probably are more abortion doctors like Gosnell

    24 80.00%
  • No, Gosnell is an anomaly

    6 20.00%
Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 268

Thread: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

  1. #231
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Are you sure you're in the thread you think you are?

    The article quoted in the op clearly refers to an Abortion (legalized and organized murder of children) doctor (who apparently forgot the motto "first do no harm", since he made his living murdering children) who killed a woman and some children trying to perform late term abortions.

    So clearly it is happening and clearly it very much has to do with this thread.
    yep, im positive,

    sorry you are wrong if he is found guilty of murder which is NEVER legal, theres no such thing by definition then he goes to jail and rightfully so

    so clearly its not happening cause thers no such thing and making it up doesnt change the fact its not happening

    if what he did was legal he wouldn't be going to trial, so like i said

    that would have to be happening first. it wasnt
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #232
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    yep, im positive,

    sorry you are wrong if he is found guilty of murder which is NEVER legal, theres no such thing by definition then he goes to jail and rightfully so

    so clearly its not happening cause thers no such thing and making it up doesnt change the fact its not happening

    if what he did was legal he wouldn't be going to trial, so like i said

    that would have to be happening first. it wasnt
    Obviously, our opinions differ. An opinion you can have because your mother didn't make the choice to have you murdered before you were born. Just as obvious, no amount of argument however logical or reasonable is going to change your mind. You will cling to your "legal" definition and I will continue to support the scientifically provable and moral definition.

    Only in the case where the mothers life is threatened is there any moral justification for abortion, the murder of unborn children. In cases other than rape, there is no reason for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn't want to. If you do the act, then you accept the consequences of your actions. It is not like there are not other options available. There are two that have zero risk of pregnancy, all others involve at least some risk, take your chances and accept the outcome.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  3. #233
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    1.)Obviously, our opinions differ. An opinion you can have because your mother didn't make the choice to have you murdered before you were born. Just as obvious, no amount of argument however logical or reasonable is going to change your mind. You will cling to your "legal" definition and I will continue to support the scientifically provable and moral definition.

    2.)Only in the case where the mothers life is threatened is there any moral justification for abortion, the murder of unborn children.
    3.) In cases other than rape, there is no reason for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn't want to.
    4.)If you do the act, then you accept the consequences of your actions. It is not like there are not other options available.
    5.)There are two that have zero risk of pregnancy, all others involve at least some risk, take your chances and accept the outcome.
    LMAO do you live in America?


    1.)ahhh see theres the confusion. You think this is an opinion discussion. Its not.
    obviously you are stating an OPINION and i stated a FACT as far as "legal murder" is concerned.
    You are right no "argument" you present will convince me to ignore FACTS because im not uneducated enough to do so. None you supply will be logical or reasonable because facts will trump them..

    There is no such thing as a scientific definition or moral definition of murder nor is one "provable" LMAO
    if you disagree please factually prove the scientific definition of murder, then prove the factually moral definition of murder ( a LEGAL term)

    Fact is there is no such thing as legal murder opinion have zero impact on this.

    2.) more OPINION since many people feel obligated by the morals to about and we already covered the fact that abortion is factually not murder Why is your opinoin more important than others and why should your opinion be forced on others?

    3.) factually false

    4.) consent to sex is factually not consent to giving birth, never will be and never has been, ever lol

    5.) see number 4, they do accept it, accept the fact abortions exists
    Last edited by AGENT J; 04-17-13 at 12:26 AM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #234
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    LMAO do you live in America?


    1.)ahhh see theres the confusion. You think this is an opinion discussion. Its not.
    obviously you are stating an OPINION and i stated a FACT as far as "legal murder" is concerned.
    You are right no "argument" you present will convince me to ignore FACTS because im not uneducated enough to do so. None you supply will be logical or reasonable because facts will trump them..

    There is no such thing as a scientific definition or moral definition of murder nor is one "provable" LMAO
    if you disagree please factually prove the scientific definition of murder, then prove the factually moral definition of murder ( a LEGAL term)

    Fact is there is no such thing as legal murder opinion have zero impact on this.

    2.) more OPINION since many people feel obligated by the morals to about and we already covered the fact that abortion is factually not murder Why is your opinoin more important than others and why should your opinion be forced on others?

    3.) factually false

    4.) consent to sex is factually not consent to giving birth, never will be and never has been, ever lol

    5.) see number 4, they do accept it, accept the fact abortions exists
    Just like consenting to sticking your hand in a fire is not consenting to be burned. Ok, have it your way.

    Yes, abortion exists, at least for now, but there is always hope for innocents in the future.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  5. #235
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    1.)Just like consenting to sticking your hand in a fire is not consenting to be burned. Ok, have it your way.

    2.)Yes, abortion exists, at least for now, but there is always hope for innocents in the future.
    thats what i thought you got nothing honest, logical or even true and rational to add

    1.) LMAO 100% false your example is in no way like consenting to sex, its illogical and not a parallel in any reality based way what so ever.
    fact remains, consenting to sex is not consenting to giving birth.

    if you disagree PLEASE feel free to provide to factually prove otherwise. Id love to read it.

    2.) abortion does exist and if it was banned tomorrow guess what, nothing would be fixed, banning abortions would just infringe on rights of the woman

    weird, why didnt you give me and factually provable evidence of scientific and moral murder?????
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #236
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    A baby, as a self-sufficient, detached organism, has every right.

    A ZEF feeding off someone else's livelihood? No.
    I've never heard of a baby being self-sufficient. In fact, in our society, a human being isn't expected to be self-sufficient until the age of eighteen, at least. Up to that age, his parents are responsible for his needs; and he does indeed live by—to use your words—“feeding off someone else's livelihood”. Is it OK, then, to “abort” a seventeen-year-old?
    Last edited by Bob Blaylock; 04-17-13 at 05:04 AM. Reason: A man without a forklift is nothing. May the Forks be with you.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  7. #237
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    I've never heard of a baby being self-sufficient. In fact, in our society, a human being isn't expected to be self-sufficient until the age of eighteen, at least. Up to that age, his parents are responsible for his needs; and he does indeed live by—to use your words—“feeding off someone else's livelihood”. Is it OK, then, to “abort” a seventeen-year-old?
    Or most welfare recipients? They are also "feeding off someone else's livelihood".
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  8. #238
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    thats what i thought you got nothing honest, logical or even true and rational to add

    1.) LMAO 100% false your example is in no way like consenting to sex, its illogical and not a parallel in any reality based way what so ever.
    fact remains, consenting to sex is not consenting to giving birth.

    if you disagree PLEASE feel free to provide to factually prove otherwise. Id love to read it.

    2.) abortion does exist and if it was banned tomorrow guess what, nothing would be fixed, banning abortions would just infringe on rights of the woman

    weird, why didnt you give me and factually provable evidence of scientific and moral murder?????
    Probably because I have posted that argument before, debating with you in fact, if I remember correctly. But then maybe it was someone else.

    So, the rights of the woman trump the rights of her child? When does the child "receive" it's right to life?

    Ok, here we go again.

    Upon conception, the egg is fertilized by the sperm and then it splits.

    Are the cells after the split alive -- Yes, scientifically provable, the take in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide (proving living animal not living plant), yes. Do they take in nutrients and give off waste products, yes. Do they reproduce, yes. This is proof of life necessary and beyond to identify live cells from dead ones.

    Are the cells "part" of the mother -- No, again scientifically provable, see DNA next.
    Do the cells contain the DNA of a unique individual, different from all other individual humans -- Yes, scientifically provable, science can even identify the sex of the individual the cells belong to. DNA testing would show a unique, provable pattern that can be used to verify a individuals identity, even in legal cases.
    Are the cells the result of cancer or other disease-- No, scientifically provable.

    So, the cells are:
    1. Normal human cells
    2. Alive
    3. Identifiable genetically as a unique human individual
    4. If all cells in an individuals body die or are killed, that individual is dead.

    Conclusion, those cells, even if only two of them, are scientifically verifiable as a unique living human, an individual. If a unique living human is killed by the actions of a person(s), that act is often called "murder" when no legal or moral justification, such as self defense/defense of others, is present.

    Not killing another person without just cause is an accepted moral prerogative in all human societies. Definition of "just cause" is often different, but not the moral acceptance of "thou shall not kill".

    A person, at least an adult one, is always responsible for their own actions. All actions, performed voluntarily can be said to be consented to by the individual performing them. Any person, performing any act, including sex, accepts the risks involved and therefore accepts the outcome of the action, whether desirable or not. If someone does not want to accept a possible outcome, then they can choose to not do the act. If the consent to the act, then they consent to the outcome. This applies to all actions done by human beings, whether it is sticking a hand in a fire or having sex or driving drunk. It either applies to all actions or none.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  9. #239
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    1.)Probably because I have posted that argument before, debating with you in fact, if I remember correctly. But then maybe it was someone else.

    2.)So, the rights of the woman trump the rights of her child? When does the child "receive" it's right to life?

    3.)Ok, here we go again.

    Upon conception, the egg is fertilized by the sperm and then it splits.

    Are the cells after the split alive -- Yes, scientifically provable, the take in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide (proving living animal not living plant), yes. Do they take in nutrients and give off waste products, yes. Do they reproduce, yes. This is proof of life necessary and beyond to identify live cells from dead ones.

    Are the cells "part" of the mother -- No, again scientifically provable, see DNA next.
    Do the cells contain the DNA of a unique individual, different from all other individual humans -- Yes, scientifically provable, science can even identify the sex of the individual the cells belong to. DNA testing would show a unique, provable pattern that can be used to verify a individuals identity, even in legal cases.
    Are the cells the result of cancer or other disease-- No, scientifically provable.

    So, the cells are:
    - Normal human cells
    - Alive
    - Identifiable genetically as a unique human individual
    - If all cells in an individuals body die or are killed, that individual is dead.

    Conclusion, those cells, even if only two of them, are scientifically verifiable as a unique living human, an individual. If a unique living human is killed by the actions of a person(s), that act is often called "murder" when no legal or moral justification, such as self defense/defense of others, is present.

    Not killing another person without just cause is an accepted moral prerogative in all human societies. Definition of "just cause" is often different, but not the moral acceptance of "thou shall not kill".

    A person, at least an adult one, is always responsible for their own actions. All actions, performed voluntarily can be said to be consented to by the individual performing them. Any person, performing any act, including sex, accepts the risks involved and therefore accepts the outcome of the action, whether desirable or not. If someone does not want to accept a possible outcome, then they can choose to not do the act. If the consent to the act, then they consent to the outcome. This applies to all actions done by human beings, whether it is sticking a hand in a fire or having sex or driving drunk. It either applies to all actions or none.
    1.) its not an argument thats what you dont get, well, actually it is an argument but its a 100% proven failed argument
    2.) currently, legally YES they factually do

    IMO, they should SOMETIMES and the ZEF's rights should trump the womans SOMETIMES

    being all or mostly pro-life or Pro-choice is mostly one sided, id like it to be a better mix

    3.) LMAO thanks for proving you are clueless about this topic and continuing to lie.
    you said it was scientifically and morally provable that its MURDER

    your ranting about the ZEF being alive which i agree with 100% since that is a fact, or your OPINION about society, or whats unjust and your morals is meaningless to the word MURDER and FACTS.

    you fail once again simply because you are dishonest and do not understand what words mean.

    all you have demonstrated is that sometimes during or right after an abortion a ZEF which is living dies.

    soooo after all this meaningless, double talk and opinion you stated we are still at the beginning, so i will ask you again.

    Please present us with FACTUAL evidence that abortion is scientifically and moral MURDER.

    this time focus on the word FACTUAL and understand that word is very different from opinion. I cant wait to see what you type next.

    also after your long meaningless rant, the fact remains that consenting to sex is not consent to give birth.
    so lets move on to your nonsensical explanation of consent.

    by your broken logic this would mean that anytime somebody walks down an alley or goes through a bad neighborhood or a woman wears a short skirt or hell when they leave the house they are consenting to being mugged, raped, killed, car jacked etc etc and should accepts the risks involved and therefore accept the outcome of the action, whether desirable or not. They should be barred from taking any further action. LMAO that is beyond stupid, illogical and as already been proven factually wrong.

    SO again your opinion has changed nothing.
    Please FACTUALLY prove that consent to sex is consent to giving birth. Same rules apply, Focus on the word FACTUALLY.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #240
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: "The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) its not an argument thats what you dont get, well, actually it is an argument but its a 100% proven failed argument
    2.) currently, legally YES they factually do

    IMO, they should SOMETIMES and the ZEF's rights should trump the womans SOMETIMES

    being all or mostly pro-life or Pro-choice is mostly one sided, id like it to be a better mix

    3.) LMAO thanks for proving you are clueless about this topic and continuing to lie.
    you said it was scientifically and morally provable that its MURDER

    your ranting about the ZEF being alive which i agree with 100% since that is a fact, or your OPINION about society, or whats unjust and your morals is meaningless to the word MURDER and FACTS.

    you fail once again simply because you are dishonest and do not understand what words mean.

    all you have demonstrated is that sometimes during or right after an abortion a ZEF which is living dies.

    soooo after all this meaningless, double talk and opinion you stated we are still at the beginning, so i will ask you again.

    Please present us with FACTUAL evidence that abortion is scientifically and moral MURDER.

    this time focus on the word FACTUAL and understand that word is very different from opinion. I cant wait to see what you type next.

    also after your long meaningless rant, the fact remains that consenting to sex is not consent to give birth.
    so lets move on to your nonsensical explanation of consent.

    by your broken logic this would mean that anytime somebody walks down an alley or goes through a bad neighborhood or a woman wears a short skirt or hell when they leave the house they are consenting to being mugged, raped, killed, car jacked etc etc and should accepts the risks involved and therefore accept the outcome of the action, whether desirable or not. They should be barred from taking any further action. LMAO that is beyond stupid, illogical and as already been proven factually wrong.

    SO again your opinion has changed nothing.
    Please FACTUALLY prove that consent to sex is consent to giving birth. Same rules apply, Focus on the word FACTUALLY.
    Lets start with Murder. Murder | Define Murder at Dictionary.com

    5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

    Synonym Study
    4. See kill1 .


    syn·o·nym
    [sin-uh-nim] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated. A dictionary of synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such as Thesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.
    2.
    a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity or Wall Street for U.S. financial markets; metonym.
    3.
    Biology . one of two or more scientific names applied to a single taxon.

    So according to the dictionary, at least the one provided, Kill is a synonym for murder and a synonym can be a word with the same meaning and can be used interchangeably. So murder can be used in place of kill depending on the connotation that the author wishes to express. Apparently you wish to only recognize the legal definition not all definitions, however all definitions and definitions of synonyms do apply.

    To avoid overly long posts, I will stick with this one aspect and move to others in other posts.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •