- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Messages
- 40,985
- Reaction score
- 55,217
- Location
- Houston Area, TX
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That is strawpeople!:lamo
Damn srawmisogynists.
#StrawLivesMatter
That is strawpeople!:lamo
Damn srawmisogynists.
The baby feels terrible pain> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9Vvfckoq8w
I've never seen a more credible source in my life.
????????????????
Coral Ridge Ministries.:no: ... source please.
I'm being sarcastic.
People on medicaid have a right to use the provider of their choice.
Coral Ridge Ministries.
I will even point out that this is after what is considered viability. And, honestly, unless there is an over riding medical condition, I feel uncomfortable about abortion after 24 weeks. I strongly doubt that there are cases that there aren't medical reasons at that point anyway.
June 17, 2003
...
Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation),
Sure they do. That's not the question. The question is whether or not the taxpayer should fund the choice.
I say not
YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY TAXPAYER WITH AN OPINION; plenty of taxpayers are pro-choice and likely would support govt-funded abortions (partly because knowing less expensive than Welfare and increased crime rate). SO HERE IS A LITTLE THING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER: If you approve of govt. spending for SOME particular thing (infrastructure?), then consider YOUR personal taxes compared to total govt. spending on that one thing. It is a drop in the bucket! Which means you are fully free to think that none of your personal taxes goes to anything you disapprove of, such as abortion funding.Sure they do. That's not the question. The question is whether or not the taxpayer should fund the choice. I say not
Coral Ridge Ministries.
Sure they do. That's not the question. The question is whether or not the taxpayer should fund the choice.
I say not
I say all abortions are funded by government.
AS USUAL, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You have yet to prove abortion qualifies as "vile", for example --all you've ever done is LIE about the Facts, regarding harm caused by unborn human animal assailants acting worse than parasites. Tsk, tsk! I also explained to you a second fundamental error you consistently blather, regarding comparing an unborn human to a bullet (commits no actions of its own). The Fact Is, an unborn human animal assailant is more like a robot that pokes you with a pin. You can accuse the builders of the robot all you want, but if the robot keeps poking you with a pin, again and again and again, what are you going to do about that???I say any government that tried something that vile warrants revolution.
You have yet to prove abortion qualifies as "vile"
unborn human animal assailants acting worse than parasites
NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE USA. Remember the Constitution? It starts off with "We the People", and includes granting Congress the power to create taxes. That means the People knows that taxes are necessary, no "gunpoint" needed (except perhaps for those who have been misinformed about what the Constitution actually says).Forcing the taxpayer at gunpoint
ANOTHER STANDARD STUPID LIE FROM YOU. A "kid" and an unborn human are **provably** two very different things! Why do you keep LYING, equating them when the Facts are against you?to pay for someone else to have their kid
IT IS NOT VILE TO KILL ANIMAL ASSAILANTS, LIKE PARASITES. So why should it be vile to kill animals that act worse than parasites, eh?killed is "vile,"
GARBAGE IN LEADS TO GARBAGE OUT. If you fixed your ignorance with actual education, you would better-understand how things are (seldom as you want them to be!).or nothing is and the word has no meaning.
FACTS ARE FACTS, NEVER DELUSIONAL, NO MATTER HOW STUPID YOU THINK THEY ARE. Go ahead, you make the claim that unborn humans are "innocent" of causing harm --PROVE IT! But you cannot, because the Actual Facts are against you!Yup, this is still uselessly, delusionally stupid.
Well, you know that you shouldn't rely on pro abortion sources as they religiously feel that abortion is a human right for which there exists no historical nor scientific evidence. It would be wise to only use sources that are entirely indifferent to values, opinions, and rhetoric -------------- or is that unfair to your way of thinking.Surprise, surprise. Well, you do know that while you can choose to refer to such sources, it won't move your argument forward in the Abortion Forum. Now it will be well received in the religious forum.
A church?? Seriously????? I presented a medical source showing pain is not felt until the third trimester.
YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY TAXPAYER WITH AN OPINION; plenty of taxpayers are pro-choice and likely would support govt-funded abortions (partly because knowing less expensive than Welfare and increased crime rate). SO HERE IS A LITTLE THING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER: If you approve of govt. spending for SOME particular thing (infrastructure?), then consider YOUR personal taxes compared to total govt. spending on that one thing. It is a drop in the bucket! Which means you are fully free to think that none of your personal taxes goes to anything you disapprove of, such as abortion funding.
Well, you know that you shouldn't rely on pro abortion sources as they religiously feel that abortion is a human right for which there exists no historical nor scientific evidence. It would be wise to only use sources that are entirely indifferent to values, opinions, and rhetoric -------------- or is that unfair to your way of thinking.
Platt, 2011: [T]he literature on fetal behaviour, perception, organisation, movement and responses focuses largely on fetuses above 28 weeks of gestation, with a relative lack of studies on the fetus between 20 and 24 weeks. This results in too much reliance on neuroscience, too much reference to animal work, too much extrapolation from both of these and too little real-world human investigation on which to base a realistic view. No one would deny that there are important issues to be confronted, but a sensible debate needs a solid base of rigorous empirical enquiry.
THERE ARE IDIOTS WHO THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REGULATE ANYTHING --and the result of that is polluted air, polluted water, sawdust added to food, toxic substances getting advertised as cure-alls, and worse.The government should not promote or fund abortion.
IF THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT, FINE. However, seeking sex is a Natural Biological Drive, not hugely unlike seeking food. There are limits to how much a Natural Biological Drive can be reined-in (how long can you hold your bladder before peeing your pants, eh?) As a result of that FACT, there will always be unwanted pregnancies. Period. And I still don't see you offering any evidence at all that abortion is a Bad Thing.How would you feel if the government funded abstinence training and pre-marital sex re-educating?
THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE GOT FED UP WITH BREATHING POLLUTED AIR PRODUCED BY SMOKERS. Smokers never consisted of more than about 1/3 of the population, which made them a political minority compared to those they were offending with their acrid fumes. Also, while there exist biological pathways that allow addictive substances to affect us, there is no significant Natural Biological Drive to become addicted. That makes for a big difference than what was described above.It certainly seems to work with regard to smoking.
FEWER, YES; "far fewer"; I want to see the data before agreeing with that description.There are far fewer smokers than there once were.
WHO DECIDES? Consider eating fatty foods as a "bad behavior pattern" ...Let's put the money towards correcting bad behavior patterns
NOW consider getting a heart transplant in order to expunge the mistake. There are so many already-existing combinations of "bad behavior" and "expunge mistake" that you can't single out abortion. Not to mention, you still haven't presented any data showing that abortion is a Bad Thing! Nor can you show that sex is "bad behavior"!and not towards expunging mistakes.