A Question To Pro-Choice People

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

what responsibility?

If you have kids you take care of them. Don't treat them like dirt.

 

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

Of course, the law will change. Everything changes. The only question is, what the change will be. It doesn't mean either of us will get our way. It only means thing will, in some way, change.

Let's pray the change will be a good thing for the unborn baby.

 

[Peter King]

Re: @ least two errors there

Calling the unborn baby a fetus is essential for abortionists to avoid any sense of shame or guilt for executing a human baby in the womb.

Bull, nothing more than bull, calling an unborn baby a fetus is also not completely accurate, first it is a zygote, then an embryo and then a fetus, abortion usually takes place before the moment even it even becomes a fetus (8th week of fertilization, 10th week of pregnancy). So you are again inaccurate for the on many levels, first in the description of the stages of a pregnancy.

Also, 80.5% of abortions take place before the 10th week of pregnancy, so before the embryo becomes a fetus. So you are peddling nonsense again for the most part. Only 20% is aborted when it is a fetus, 8.3% before week 12. The percentage of abortions after week 21 is just 1.3%.

And no, no abortion doctor feels guilt for performing their medical practice on the wishes of the woman. And executing :lamo, you are totally dependent/hung up on that nonsense description of abortion and other medical decisions you disapprove of.

 

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

1. because the court decided that she would not have wanted to live like a vegetable, no sane person wants to be a vegetable for the rest of their lives

If she was a vegetable then there is no reason to think she did not want her parents taking care of her instead of the executioners at the hospital.

2. she was an adult, she was not a child, it does not matter what her uncaring parents wanted. And yes, I say uncaring as they only cared about their own feelings, they did not care about the best interest of their child, only their own feelings.

She did not say she wanted to die. She was in some sort of incapacitated state. It was her husband who said that she had said she did not want to go on living in an incapacitated state, even though he could not prove that.

3. she was not executed, that is a lie, she was allowed to die. She would have died a good deal earlier if nature had been allowed to take it's course, then the dehydration death would not have been needed. She also would not have been starved to death, death of dehydration comes much quicker. Also she could not eat, she would die if she would eat, she would have to be forced fed through a tube.

That's how the devil's crowd describes her execution? Just like Jesus was not executed, but was allowed to die, I suppose?

4. her parents IMHO where ghouls, they loved the attention they got and did not want to give it up for anything, not even the best interest of their daughter. If you are a parent you should care about what your daughter would have wanted, not what you want. She was dead already inside, only her shell was being kept alive because of first hope and that is fine, but when there is no more hope whatsoever, parents/spouses have to take their responsibility and allow someone who is a vegetable to die. And no, I am not talking about regular coma patients, for some of them waking up is still an option, in this case that was impossible. She was given peace at least, despite her selfish parents.

You falsely accuse and savagely slander her good parents in order to justify the wicked barbarians who put the woman to death for evil reasons.

 

[Peter King]

Re: @ least two errors there

Terri's murderers are with God's plan and her attempted saviors are not?

both are possibly with the imaginary figure called god, but the judges and her husband were respecting the wishes of Terri, her parents were not. Her parents weren't even acting in Terri's best interest. They would have done immoral things if they had gotten their hands on her (at least that is what they admitted that they would do to keep stretching the life of the human shell that once used to be their daughter).

 

[Peter King]

Re: @ least two errors there

If she was a vegetable then there is no reason to think she did not want her parents taking care of her instead of the executioners at the hospital.

Except the court had decided that this was not her wish, based on testimony of her husband and if I am not mistaken on the testimony of others. Also, the judge had a brain, the parents did not show to have any sound mind or conscience.

She did not say she wanted to die. She was in some sort of incapacitated state. It was her husband who said that she had said she did not want to go on living in an incapacitated state, even though he could not prove that.

That is your opinion, based on nothing other than the totally biased parents. And those parents had no say in the situation. She was married, it was up to him to decide what her wishes would be. What she and her husband talked about in the privacy of their own house was not something the parents needed to be privy too.

And she was not in some sort of incapacitated state, she was brain dead.

That's how the devil's crowd describes her execution? Just like Jesus was not executed, but was allowed to die, I suppose?

Actually, contrary to your untruthful descriptions, she was not executed. And Jesus son of god did not exist and imaginary figures cannot be executed. And if the bible is true (and I don't believe that for one second but everybody is free to believe other wise), then he was executed, by design and by full consciousness. Terri's brain however was dead, her body was being kept alive artificially.

You falsely accuse and savagely slander her good parents in order to justify the wicked barbarians who put the woman to death for evil reasons.

Yes, I slander her parents because they deserved to be slandered. They did not love their daughter enough to give her dignity, they video'd her and plastered her face all over the internet. Not because that would be what their daughter would have wanted, but because of their selfishness. She was a hollow reflection of the beautiful woman that she once was. And instead of people remembering the person that Terri was, people now remember the vegetable that once used to be Terri.

And the only barbarians with evil reasons in this case were her parents. They admitted they would have done horrendous things to her if they had gotten their hands on her. Not that they had any right to her because SHE WAS MARRIED!!! It was none of their business what she and her husband decided.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: @ least two errors there

If you have kids you take care of them. Don't treat them like dirt.

whats that have to do with abortion?
who is factually not taking care of their kids? who is factually treating them like dirt?

 

[AGENT J]

If the Supreme Court was able to overturn the ruling against a Christian baker (SSM Wedding Cake) over something like "artistic expression," who knows what could happen with abortion!

when did this happen?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: @ least two errors there

Calling the unborn baby a fetus is essential for abortionists to avoid any sense of shame or guilt for executing a human baby in the womb.

??? so using factually accurate terms based on definitions and science that are terms for a human is some how an avoidance?:lamo:lamo

please back up your lie with one fact, thanks

 

[AGENT J]

Re: @ least two errors there

Abortionists have found neuroscientists who help them rationalize that a fetus is a non-living human baby before 26 weeks?

oh oh you just said fetus why are you dehumanizing that baby?
also who here thinks the baby is "non-living) at 25 weeks? please quote them and we can make fun of them together for being factually wrong. If you cant its just another retarded lie you got caught making up

 

[AGENT J]

Re: @ least two errors there

Unborn babies are totally at the mercy of their mothers who have the legal right to decide whether they live or die, just like a cruel despot leader of an enslaved nation.

awww thats a cute opinion with no facts to support it, whats your alternative? make mothers total at the mercy of your laws to enslave her? ooooooops your hypocrisy is exposed again

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: @ least two errors there

The baby does not feel a thing before or after its head is severed from its body by the abortionist butcher?

The majority of abortions are vacuum aspiration or medical (medication ie. RU 486). The fetus is incapable of feeling anything.

D&E abortions are the extreme minority and, as Minnie has shown time and time again, the fetus is dead before dismemberment begins. Dead entities cannot feel anything.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Follow the bouncing ball

I am not following you. What did I remove?

You did it here as well. Post 403 spelled it all out and you just choose to avoid answering.

Nothing new.

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

Now it is. Let's see if the modern law is changed again in the future.

It wont. Modern times are more civil, we're not going back to the Dark Ages.

Do you believe that America will go back to laws that mean women are no longer equal to men? That's what it would take to make abortion illegal. Do you believe that America will give the unborn rights that supersede women's?

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

The government should not have to force parents to treat their kids right and take responsibility for their actions.

Correct. And it recognizes that from many many SCOTUS precedents.

It's chosen not to be the arbiter of American's personal morals.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: @ least two errors there

That's the trouble with human laws. Some human laws demand the death penalty for anyone hiding Jews from roving bands of genocidal maniacs and some laws make it a crime to put an injured animal to death to put it out of its misery.

All I can do is smh.

 

[Scrabaholic]

The tumor is not a human being. The fetus, is.

A fetus is not a human being. And you might want to learn what an analogy is.

 

[minnie616]

Re: @ least two errors there

Leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga , ( a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics) said that before about 26 weeks the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as a someone brain dead.

Read more:

The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That? | WIRED

Abortionists have found neuroscientists who help them rationalize that a fetus is a non-living human baby before 26 weeks?

Did you read my post?

Did you read the article?

Just a reminder he is not only a neuroscientist ,he is the author of the book The Ethical Brain and was a member of GW Bush’s
Council on Bioethics.

 

[minnie616]

Re: @ least two errors there

One man gets it wrong and the rest of the abortionists in the world follow the blind into the ditch?

I disagree.
It is my sincerity held belief and the belief of my Christian Protestant Church that the man had it right.


For thousands of years the Jewish Religion, and Protestant Churches including Evanglists read the Bible that life/ensoulment started with live birth , when the newborn breathed in the breath of life.

Then in the 1980s Falwell told his Evangelists followers that life started with conception.

From the following article:

Why does it matter that what evangelical leaders say is “the biblical view on abortion” was not a widespread interpretation until about 30 years ago?
For one thing, it’s harder to argue the Bible clearly teaches something when the overwhelming majority of its past interpreters didn’t read the Bible that way.

For another, it illustrates that evangelical leaders are happy to defend creative reinterpretations of the Bible when it fits with a socially conservative worldview — even while objecting to new interpretations of the Bible on, say, homosexuality, precisely because they are new. And for another, by looking at the history of how today’s “biblical view on abortion” arose, one can begin to see the worldview that made it possible.
In the process, it becomes apparent it is that unacknowledged worldview, and not the Bible,
that evangelical opponents of abortion are actually defending.

How Evangelicals Decided That Life Begins at Conception | HuffPost

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

I oppose butchering babies in the womb and you accuse me of having a fantasy about death?

No babies are butchered...that's your first disturbing fantasy

No unborn feel any pain or awareness of the procedure...I guess the reality is not disturbing enough to keep your self-righteousness primed?

Imagining any kind of butchering in a woman's womb...your additional disturbing fantasy.

When you can exert some self-control over your thoughts, please let us know so we can have a discussion based on reality...not the grotesque fantasies housed in your mind.

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

Murdering babies after they are born alive and calling it abortion instead of murder. You know, what Beto proposed and what Gosnell practiced.

Please source where Beto supported murdering babies.

And Gosnell was a criminal and broke many laws...which laws do you think would stop a criminal like that?

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

And I enjoy bashing moronic women who think so full of themselves!
More so the ones who put them on a pedestal! :mrgreen:

How Christian of you!

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

Calling the unborn baby a fetus is essential for abortionists to avoid any sense of shame or guilt for executing a human baby in the womb.

And pretending that the accurate names for the stage of development is dehumanizing (when specifically assigned to Homo sapiens :doh) instead of using emotionally-charged anthropomorphic names to pretend that they're equal to people is lying and a sin. It shows how disconnected from reality such people are.

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

Unborn babies are totally at the mercy of their mothers who have the legal right to decide whether they live or die, just like a cruel despot leader of an enslaved nation.

The unborn feel and know nothing...one cannot be cruel to something with no consciousness or feeling.

You interact with these women everyday, 1 in 4 American women have had an abortion...I dont see society in any peril of tyranny at all. How are you impacted by their decisions? Please let us know?

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

If you have kids you take care of them. Don't treat them like dirt.

What on earth does that have to do with abortion? (And yes I saw where this particular conversation started.)