LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

---

. Look liar. I always say I affirm a woman's right to her own health decisions. It's between net and her doctor.
You are the one tosses in the lie of 30 week.
It's a lie and you know it and have no honor.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

---

. Look liar. I always say I affirm a woman's right to her own health decisions. It's between net and her doctor.
You are the one tosses in the lie of 30 week.
It's a lie and you know it and have no honor.

---

When you say "I affirm a woman's right to her own health decisions," and you include killing her 30-week-old unborn offspring as one of those "health decisions," you are saying that a 30-week-old unborn offspring can be aborted. There is no way around that, not even when you use ad hom attacks on me for pointing out the obvious.

If you don't like 30 weeks, make it 25 or 35. There really isn't a substantive difference.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

. Look liar. I always say I affirm a woman's right to her own health decisions. It's between net and her doctor.
You are the one tosses in the lie of 30 week.
It's a lie and you know it and have no honor.

---

If nothing else, you've made it clear that you are deeply uncomfortable with your own position on abortion. You might want to think about why that would be.

---

. Thank Dr Freud But no

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

---

When I need a bad spin I'll ride a carousel but you are not even close. You snatch phrases from here and there but you're wrong.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

---

When I need a bad spin I'll ride a carousel but you are not even close. You snatch phrases from here and there but you're wrong.

---

I am not snatching phrases from here and there, I am quoting exactly what you said in response to the question of whether you support the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. In response to that question, you clearly stated that you support her right to make the decision to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. Again, you cannot, affirm her right to "make that decision" (which is the decision to kill her 30-week-old unborn offspring) while simultaneously claiming that you do not say a 30-week-old unborn human offspring can be aborted. Either you support her right to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks, in which case you are saying a 30 week old unborn human offspring can be aborted, or you don't.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

---

When I need a bad spin I'll ride a carousel but you are not even close. You snatch phrases from here and there but you're wrong.

---

I am not snatching phrases from here and there, I am quoting exactly what you said in response to the question of whether you support the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. In response to that question, you clearly stated that you support her right to make the decision to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. Again, you cannot, affirm her right to "make that decision" (which is the decision to kill her 30-week-old unborn offspring) while simultaneously claiming that you do not say a 30-week-old unborn human offspring can be aborted. Either you support her right to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks, in which case you are saying a 30 week old unborn human offspring can be aborted, or you don't.

---

I don't support a damn thing that you accuse me of. I support the right of a woman to make her own decision with the advice and counsel of doctor. I am not in medical position to know about 30 month abortions and neither are you. There may be a reasons for it but none of them are your business nor mine. Each case is individual to that patient and that doctor and none of your business. Stay out of their office.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

---

When I need a bad spin I'll ride a carousel but you are not even close. You snatch phrases from here and there but you're wrong.

---

I am not snatching phrases from here and there, I am quoting exactly what you said in response to the question of whether you support the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. In response to that question, you clearly stated that you support her right to make the decision to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. Again, you cannot, affirm her right to "make that decision" (which is the decision to kill her 30-week-old unborn offspring) while simultaneously claiming that you do not say a 30-week-old unborn human offspring can be aborted. Either you support her right to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks, in which case you are saying a 30 week old unborn human offspring can be aborted, or you don't.

---

I don't support a damn thing that you accuse me of. I support the right of a woman to make her own decision with the advice and counsel of doctor. I am not in medical position to know about 30 month abortions and neither are you. There may be a reasons for it but none of them are your business nor mine. Each case is individual to that patient and that doctor and none of your business. Stay out of their office.

---

if a Mother is in the position to be able to have an abortion at 30 months, she needs some sort of Prize!

cms186 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

---

When I need a bad spin I'll ride a carousel but you are not even close. You snatch phrases from here and there but you're wrong.

---

I am not snatching phrases from here and there, I am quoting exactly what you said in response to the question of whether you support the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. In response to that question, you clearly stated that you support her right to make the decision to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. Again, you cannot, affirm her right to "make that decision" (which is the decision to kill her 30-week-old unborn offspring) while simultaneously claiming that you do not say a 30-week-old unborn human offspring can be aborted. Either you support her right to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks, in which case you are saying a 30 week old unborn human offspring can be aborted, or you don't.

---

I don't support a damn thing that you accuse me of. I support the right of a woman to make her own decision with the advice and counsel of doctor. I am not in medical position to know about 30 month abortions and neither are you. There may be a reasons for it but none of them are your business nor mine. Each case is individual to that patient and that doctor and none of your business. Stay out of their office.

---

if a Mother is in the position to be able to have an abortion at 30 months, she needs some sort of Prize!

---

Talking about killing a baby is a joke these days?

cms186 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

---

When I need a bad spin I'll ride a carousel but you are not even close. You snatch phrases from here and there but you're wrong.

---

I am not snatching phrases from here and there, I am quoting exactly what you said in response to the question of whether you support the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. In response to that question, you clearly stated that you support her right to make the decision to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. Again, you cannot, affirm her right to "make that decision" (which is the decision to kill her 30-week-old unborn offspring) while simultaneously claiming that you do not say a 30-week-old unborn human offspring can be aborted. Either you support her right to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks, in which case you are saying a 30 week old unborn human offspring can be aborted, or you don't.

---

I don't support a damn thing that you accuse me of. I support the right of a woman to make her own decision with the advice and counsel of doctor. I am not in medical position to know about 30 month abortions and neither are you. There may be a reasons for it but none of them are your business nor mine. Each case is individual to that patient and that doctor and none of your business. Stay out of their office.

---

if a Mother is in the position to be able to have an abortion at 30 months, she needs some sort of Prize!

---

Are you actually saying .... "Give a woman that has an abortion at 30 months a prize?"

I'm just making sure I'm understanding your statement correctly

Florda_mike said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 is off his rocker with his silly hypotheticals.

How'bout this 47; according to your little scenario, the Christian moms of those in prison for committing murder must hate their kids. Now reality says they hate the act their kids committed but only in your warped mind do they hate their kids.

You are so worried about your distorted view of love, you have given up right, wrong and truth. You've distorted the gospel so it is easier to hear but you've neutered it in the process. The summer of love should have been a season and you made it your life. If you want to wax nostalgic, package the gospel as Campus Crusade for Christ did in that time. They didn't distort the message. They just put it in tie-die shirts and didn't cut its hair. It was still the gospel and some neutered god you created

---

. The issue is abortion and life not a straw man of improsoned moms. Try again. Focus.

---

Think of the murder victims as the aborted babies and it all works... except in your distorted, self-created version of god.

There's a reason I've called you stumbling block 47

---

I asked you to focus and stop the straw man but all I got was more derision. "Tie die". "Moms must hate kids" "Summer Of love" "Neutered god". "Give up right, wrong truth" "off his rocket"
All straw men. Now focus on an actual argument.

---

Here is an actual argument for you to focus on: The claim that it is no one else's business if a woman kills her unborn offspring at 30 weeks is morally bankrupt because a 30-week-old unborn human offspring is a living human being. Since that is the claim you have made, you are morally bankrupt.

---

I never said a 30 week old can be aborted. Show me the quote. I am not a doctor and neither are you this is a medical decision and not yours to make. I simply affirm the right of a woman to make her own decisions.

---

So, you affirm the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks?

---

I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision. It's not my health at stake but hers. It's her decision not mine nor yours.

---

You said on the one hand that "I never said a 30 week old can be aborted." In the very same post you said, "I only affirm the right of the woman and the doctor to make that decision [to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks]." You cannot "affirm a woman's right" to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks while claiming you "never said a 30 week old can be aborted." Those two statements cannot be true at the same time.

---

When I need a bad spin I'll ride a carousel but you are not even close. You snatch phrases from here and there but you're wrong.

---

I am not snatching phrases from here and there, I am quoting exactly what you said in response to the question of whether you support the right of a woman to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. In response to that question, you clearly stated that you support her right to make the decision to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks. Again, you cannot, affirm her right to "make that decision" (which is the decision to kill her 30-week-old unborn offspring) while simultaneously claiming that you do not say a 30-week-old unborn human offspring can be aborted. Either you support her right to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks, in which case you are saying a 30 week old unborn human offspring can be aborted, or you don't.

---

I don't support a damn thing that you accuse me of. I support the right of a woman to make her own decision with the advice and counsel of doctor. I am not in medical position to know about 30 month abortions and neither are you. There may be a reasons for it but none of them are your business nor mine. Each case is individual to that patient and that doctor and none of your business. Stay out of their office.

---

if a Mother is in the position to be able to have an abortion at 30 months, she needs some sort of Prize!

---

Are you actually saying .... "Give a woman that has an abortion at 30 months a prize?"

I'm just making sure I'm understanding your statement correctly

---

Jesus Christ, are you guys really being this dumb? It was a joke based on the fact the person who i responded to mistyped Months instead of Weeks and that if a woman was actually pregnant for 30 months (which everyone should know is not ****ing possible) she deserved a Prize. I specifically worded it so that it said "If she was capable of having an abortion" (ie, she was pregnant) at 30 months, not "if she had an abortion"

I didnt think this one would need spelling out.

DC "Accusing you? I am reflecting back your own words. If you are "accused" of supporting a woman's right to make the decision to kill her unborn offspring at 30 weeks, it is your own words doing the accusing rather than mine. (((((You missed my point. It's a medical decision and none of your business and none of mine either. Her reasons are her reasons. You don't get to sit in judgment of her morally or legally. You can have opinions all day long but thoroughly remove the log from your own eye before finding the splinter in hers. Let's search your past moral decisions medical/moral decisions. Medical and moral decisions collide here and inside with the woman's right to her own body. )))))))?

The law says the state has an interest in the welfare of a 30-week-old unborn human offspring. As a citizen, I have a role in determining what the state does. You are, therefore, incorrect to assert that this is "none of my business" unless you can show that either the law says the state has no interest in the welfare of a 30-week-old human offspring or that a citizen has no role in determining the actions of the government. Which one would you like to attempt?"

Specious argument. The truth of the matter is that I don't know legally about 30 week abortions, but if it is allowed for medical reasons then her right as citizen supercedes your citizen's right because it ain't your body your deciding for. So it's none of your business. It's a human right. You would not want it abridged against you; would you? Would you? Would you?
I asked three times because you never answer personally what you would do morally and medically.

Waco1947 said:

---

Specious argument. The truth of the matter is that I don't know legally about 30 week abortions, but if it is allowed for medical reasons then her right as citizen supercedes your citizen's right because it ain't your body your deciding for. So it's none of your business. It's a human right. You would not want it abridged against you; would you? Would you? Would you?
I asked three times because you never answer personally what you would do morally and medically.

---

I am making the claim that the state claims an interest in the welfare of a 30-week-old unborn human offspring.
You have said in response that the truth of the matter is that you are ignorant as to whether that is true or not. Yo do not know legally about 30-week abortions. I would suggest, therefore, that you go educate yourself on a few of the laws currently on the books so that your lack of knowledge will no longer be a hinderance to you.

Killing another human being is not a human right, and the "right" to kill another human being is most certainly "abridged" against me. I fully support that limitation.

When you say "if it is allowed," implicit in that statement is the acknowledgment that the state has claimed an interest in allowing it or not allowing it, and, if the state has an interest in it, I, as a citizen, have an interest in it as well. It is, therefore, very much my business, no matter how many times you call me a liar or say I have no honor. (Which is a pretty shoddy way to discuss an issue, I might add).

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I asked three times because you never answer personally what you would do morally and medically.

---

You don't answer questions ALL THE TIME. Do not even begin to lecture someone else on avoiding questions.

---

. You're right I don't answer questions because the questions are predicated on a false premise. Why chase a false accusation via a 'question' down a rabbit hole.
Usually the question go like this "You believe in killing babies what about what Jesus says?"
It's a stupid question. The premise is wrong. 1) they aren't babies but embryos 2) it's a woman decision It's states a belief that I don't believe.
I can hold two paradoxical thoughts in my head at the the same time.
1). I don't believe in killing babies but embryos are not babies. I'll make my own moral/medical decisions but not yours.
2). A woman can make her own moral/medical decisions with competing moralities in her head - my life vs potential life. I may not agree with her decision to abort but I agree with right to her medical/moral decisions.
I suppose the closest I can come to that kind of personal decision is my end of life choices. I have a DNR and I want a quality life not bed ridden with no mind. That's my decision not anyone else. It's a medical/moral decision. I hope I am clear with my loved ones about my wishes and they honor my decision.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I asked three times because you never answer personally what you would do morally and medically.

---

You don't answer questions ALL THE TIME. Do not even begin to lecture someone else on avoiding questions.

---

. You're right I don't answer questions because the questions are predicated on a false premise. Why chase a false accusation via a 'question' down a rabbit hole.
Usually the question go like this "You believe in killing babies what about what Jesus says?"
It's a stupid question. The premise is wrong. 1) they aren't babies but embryos 2) it's a woman decision It's states a belief that I don't believe.
I can hold two paradoxical thoughts in my head at the the same time.
1). I don't believe in killing babies but embryos are not babies. I'll make my own moral/medical decisions but not yours.
2). A woman can make her own moral/medical decisions with competing moralities in her head - my life vs potential life. I may not agree with her decision to abort but I agree with right to her medical/moral decisions.
I suppose the closest I can come to that kind of personal decision is my end of life choices. I have a DNR and I want a quality life not bed ridden with no mind. That's my decision not anyone else. It's a medical/moral decision. I hope I am clear with my loved ones about my wishes and they honor my decision.

---

Do you believe the state should have an interest in the welfare of a 30-week-old human offspring?
Yes or no?

(Note, since you don't want "babies" or "Jesus" in the question, there's no talk of "babies" or "Jesus" in this question).

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Specious argument. The truth of the matter is that I don't know legally about 30 week abortions, but if it is allowed for medical reasons then her right as citizen supercedes your citizen's right because it ain't your body your deciding for. So it's none of your business. It's a human right. You would not want it abridged against you; would you? Would you? Would you?
I asked three times because you never answer personally what you would do morally and medically.

---

I am making the claim that the state claims an interest in the welfare of a 30-week-old unborn human offspring.
You have said in response that the truth of the matter is that you are ignorant as to whether that is true or not. Yo do not know legally about 30-week abortions. I would suggest, therefore, that you go educate yourself on a few of the laws currently on the books so that your lack of knowledge will no longer be a hinderance to you.

Killing another human being is not a human right, and the "right" to kill another human being is most certainly "abridged" against me. I fully support that limitation.

When you say "if it is allowed," implicit in that statement is the acknowledgment that the state has claimed an interest in allowing it or not allowing it, and, if the state has an interest in it, I, as a citizen, have an interest in it as well. It is, therefore, very much my business, no matter how many times you call me a liar or say I have no honor. (Which is a pretty shoddy way to discuss an issue, I might add).

---

IMO, 47 is hiding behind the phrase "allowed for medical reasons." "Medical reasons" is a very imprecise. Since 47 refuses to answer when a fetus becomes "made in the image of God" or when a fetus becomes a "hunan," "medical reasons" may include something as trivia as what others call a small inconvenience.

So 47 is really stuck and hides in his " ignorance" of the facts about the "medical reasons" which only concern the mother because the fetus is of no importance. And since it is "none of his business," he hides behind a false narrative of free will.

Polycarp said:

---

IMO, 47 is hiding behind the phrase "allowed for medical reasons." "Medical reasons" is a very imprecise. Since 47 refuses to answer when a fetus becomes "made in the image of God" or when a fetus becomes a "hunan," "medical reasons" may include something as trivia as what others call a small inconvenience.

So 47 is really stuck and hides in his " ignorance" of the facts about the "medical reasons" which only concern the mother because the fetus is of no importance. And since it is "none of his business," he hides behind a false narrative of free will.

---

Sadly, in our country today, a woman can abort until the baby is born in ALL 50 states for a "medical reason."

A "medical reason" has been very liberally defined.

Coke Bear said:

---

Polycarp said:

---

IMO, 47 is hiding behind the phrase "allowed for medical reasons." "Medical reasons" is a very imprecise. Since 47 refuses to answer when a fetus becomes "made in the image of God" or when a fetus becomes a "hunan," "medical reasons" may include something as trivia as what others call a small inconvenience.

So 47 is really stuck and hides in his " ignorance" of the facts about the "medical reasons" which only concern the mother because the fetus is of no importance. And since it is "none of his business," he hides behind a false narrative of free will.

---

Sadly, in our country today, a woman can abort until the baby is born in ALL 50 states for a "medical reason."

A "medical reason" has been very liberally defined.

---

Yes it is but that's between doctor and patient.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I asked three times because you never answer personally what you would do morally and medically.

---

You don't answer questions ALL THE TIME. Do not even begin to lecture someone else on avoiding questions.

---

. You're right I don't answer questions because the questions are predicated on a false premise. Why chase a false accusation via a 'question' down a rabbit hole.

---

That is not true. You don't respond to many rational well thought out responses to your comments. And the burning building example you keep trying to pass off as valid is the epitome of a false premise.

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I asked three times because you never answer personally what you would do morally and medically.

---

You don't answer questions ALL THE TIME. Do not even begin to lecture someone else on avoiding questions.

---

. You're right I don't answer questions because the questions are predicated on a false premise. Why chase a false accusation via a 'question' down a rabbit hole.

---

That is not true. You don't respond to many rational well thought out responses to your comments. And the burning building example you keep trying to pass off as valid is the epitome of a false premise.

---

IYHO not Not my humble opinion. You will acknowledge complexity and doubt and hope that God trusts your judgement in saving the 5 year old over 1000 lives. My complaint is that you do not offer the same grace to women who seek abortions.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I asked three times because you never answer personally what you would do morally and medically.

---

You don't answer questions ALL THE TIME. Do not even begin to lecture someone else on avoiding questions.

---

. You're right I don't answer questions because the questions are predicated on a false premise. Why chase a false accusation via a 'question' down a rabbit hole.

---

That is not true. You don't respond to many rational well thought out responses to your comments. And the burning building example you keep trying to pass off as valid is the epitome of a false premise.

---

IYHO not Not my humble opinion. You will acknowledge complexity and doubt and hope that God trusts your judgement in saving the 5 year old over 1000 lives. My complaint is that you do not offer the same grace to women who seek abortions.

---

My complaint is that the argument is a poor one. You ignored many rational responses to it both by members of this board and those that they linked.

You did not make any rational responses to those posts - you just ignored them and kept repeating yourself.

So again, don't criticize anyone for not answering questions. Don't criticize the logic of others' posts when you ignore the logical fallacies of your own.

As I've said before, I'm not debating abortion, I'm pointing out the poor logical argument you use to defend your position.

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes it is but that's between doctor and patient.

---

Woman @ 40th week of pregnancy: "Doc, I'm too stressed to have a baby. I want to abort it."
Doc: "OK"

That's a valid "medical reason" in all 50 states.

Waco - This is my last post on this thread. You are talking in circles trying to justify your position. It's not working with anyone here. No one here is changing their mind due to your posts.

My last two points and them I'm out ...

• An intrinsic evil should never be tolerated even under the veil of alleged rights.
• I will continue to pray for you.

Peace.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes it is but that's between doctor and patient.

---

Woman @ 40th week of pregnancy: "Doc, I'm too stressed to have a baby. I want to abort it."
Doc: "OK"

That's a valid "medical reason" in all 50 states.

Waco - This is my last post on this thread. You are talking in circles trying to justify your position. It's not working with anyone here. No one here is changing their mind due to your posts.

My last two points and them I'm out ...

• An intrinsic evil should never be tolerated even under the veil of alleged rights.
• I will continue to pray for you.

Peace.

---

So? I ain't evil. The doctor and woman have that right. You don't. You may abhor but we are Americans and it's her right. Declaring it's her right does not make me evil but constitutional. There's a difference.

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes it is but that's between doctor and patient.

---

Woman @ 40th week of pregnancy: "Doc, I'm too stressed to have a baby. I want to abort it."
Doc: "OK"

That's a valid "medical reason" in all 50 states.

Waco - This is my last post on this thread. You are talking in circles trying to justify your position. It's not working with anyone here. No one here is changing their mind due to your posts.

My last two points and them I'm out ...

• An intrinsic evil should never be tolerated even under the veil of alleged rights.
• I will continue to pray for you.

Peace.

---

So? I ain't evil. The doctor and woman have that right. You don't. You may abhor but we are Americans and it's her right. Declaring it's her right does not make me evil but constitutional. There's a difference.

---

Substitute slavery for abortion and you can make the same argument.

Why are you so reticent to answer a question so basic to the discussion of this matter?

Do you believe the state should have an interest in the welfare of a 30-week-old human offspring?
Yes or no?

(Note, since you don't want "babies" or "Jesus" in the question, there's no talk of "babies" or "Jesus" in this question).