Waco1947 said:

---

Yes the abortions sadden me but it is none of my business.

---

Yes, the slaves sadden me, but it's none of my business. Yes, the dead Jews sadden me, but it's none of my business. Yes, the innocent African Americans who are shot and killed by cops sadden me, but it is none of my business. Yes, the neglected and abused children sadden me, but it is none of my business. Yes, the women who are beaten and killed by their husbands sadden me, but it is none of my business. Yes, the people who are sickened or killed by lead contaminated water sadden me, but it is none of my business. All of these evil things sadden me, but they are none of my business.

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

LAgain, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

So you define a fetus as a human. That's common ground. Here's some additional common ground for you to consider: humans have rights.

---

Ok. Right now those rights are defined by Roe v Wade.

Aw man, did I use the "d" word again? Trigger alert for Milli.

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

LAgain, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

So you define a fetus as a human. That's common ground. Here's some additional common ground for you to consider: humans have rights.

---

Ok. Right now those rights are defined by Roe v Wade.

Aw man, did I use the "d" word again? Trigger alert for Milli.

---

One coul quibble that Roe v. Wade is no longer defining those rights as other cases have superseded it, but, more to the point, the extent to which Roe v. Wade defines those rights is the same extent to which Dred Scott defined the rights of slaves. What is granted legally by a court at a given moment is not necessarily rational or moral.

I cannot see what Milli posts, he is half of my ignore list.

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes the abortions sadden me but it is none of my business.

---

What an idiotic copout, if it's none of your business then why are you on this thread?

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

LAgain, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

So you define a fetus as a human. That's common ground. Here's some additional common ground for you to consider: humans have rights.

---

Ok. Right now those rights are defined by Roe v Wade.

Aw man, did I use the "d" word again? Trigger alert for Milli.

---

Defined is apparently another basic piece of vocabulary you can't ironically define and shouldn't use.

I think D.C. is on to something...

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

LAgain, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

So you define a fetus as a human. That's common ground. Here's some additional common ground for you to consider: humans have rights.

---

. Yes and so do women. By Jove I think you've got it.

quash said:

---

I think D.C. is on something...

---

corrected for accuracy

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

LAgain, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

So you define a fetus as a human. That's common ground. Here's some additional common ground for you to consider: humans have rights.

---

. Yes and so do women. By Jove I think you've got it.

---

When you say "so do women," it is implied in your statement that women are somehow a separate group from humans. I disagree, but let us set that aside for the moment.
Here is a set of statements.

Tell me which ones you find false as it relates to humans.

A fetus is alive.
A human fetus is human.
Living humans have rights.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

LAgain, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

So you define a fetus as a human. That's common ground. Here's some additional common ground for you to consider: humans have rights.

---

. Yes and so do women. By Jove I think you've got it.

---

When you say "so do women," it is implied in your statement that women are somehow a separate group from humans. I disagree, but let us set that aside for the moment.
Here is a set of statements.

Tell me which ones you find false as it relates to humans.

A fetus is alive. Alive. It's true.
A human fetus is human. Nope it is a fetus on its way to becoming human
Living humans have rights. True. But a living human is of a different grade than a fetus.

---

So I think you are setting a gotcha moment. However, I answered honestly so don't name call.
And finally what I feel about it is immaterial. It's the woman's answer to those questions that count. And it's none of your business nor mine how she decides.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

LAgain, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

So you define a fetus as a human. That's common ground. Here's some additional common ground for you to consider: humans have rights.

---

. Yes and so do women. By Jove I think you've got it.

---

When you say "so do women," it is implied in your statement that women are somehow a separate group from humans. I disagree, but let us set that aside for the moment.
Here is a set of statements.

Tell me which ones you find false as it relates to humans.

A fetus is alive. Alive. It's true.
A human fetus is human. Nope it is a fetus on its way to becoming human
Living humans have rights. True. But a living human is of a different grade than a fetus.

---

So I think you are setting a gotcha moment. However, I answered honestly so don't name call.
And finally what I feel about it is immaterial. It's the woman's answer to those questions that count. And it's none of your business nor mine how she decides.

---

When are you going to address the OP which is about why has liberalism turned its back on the pro-life ethic it once embraced?

We have not turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

Waco1947 said:

---

We have turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

You're getting all kinds of mixed up with yourself.
You are pro choice...no if's and's, or but's about it.

You think of us as horrible evil people that want to deny women's rights.
That's stupid and a viciously evil way to label people.

What we are really wanting is personal responsibility and cultural changes.

You said " You deny contraception to adolescent females and women"...no we don't. If you can't afford a $5 box of condoms then your dumb ass doesn't need to be screwing and having babies. And if you do it anyways, you deserve the hardships that come with it.

Can't afford a child or don't want the burden of one...then use a condom or don't have sex at all.
That's personal responsibility. When are you going to hold these women accountable instead of blaming Republicans for not wanting to pay for them or their abortions? Because that's really the problem here: people having children they can't afford or can't take care of.

Because you're a leftist democrat, you think it's up to society to correct this misfortune with our paychecks. You neglect to understand that we are SICK AND F_CKING TIRED OF PAYING FOR IT.

You are on the side of history that endorses murdering babies and making other people pay for it. Shame on you.

Waco1947 said:

---

We have turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

You really think I'm a powerful person.

And you have a shallow grasp of pro-life if you think there aren't tens of thousands of people yearning to adopt.
Yearning and actively seeking to bring needy women in crisis to comfort through a crisis pregnancy center, church, individual, or a safe house or even Ronald McDonald House.

I've denied no one a thing, it's some strange straw man you're busy attacking.

And you're pretty sanctimonious to assume people that call abortion out for what it is are somehow disinterested in the life of a child, it appears your narrow view of interest means it must come through a welfare state.

This lack of nuance, curiosity and imagination plagues those that cry out for the nanny state as the solution to all of man's ills.

If you are pro-life as you assert, why don't you actively steward needy women into pro-life support?

Why don't you rebuke the modern left for abandoning that ethic it once held dear and that gave liberalism credibility?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

LAgain, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

So you define a fetus as a human. That's common ground. Here's some additional common ground for you to consider: humans have rights.

---

. Yes and so do women. By Jove I think you've got it.

---

When you say "so do women," it is implied in your statement that women are somehow a separate group from humans. I disagree, but let us set that aside for the moment.
Here is a set of statements.

Tell me which ones you find false as it relates to humans.

A fetus is alive. Alive. It's true.
A human fetus is human. Nope it is a fetus on its way to becoming human
Living humans have rights. True. But a living human is of a different grade than a fetus.

---

So I think you are setting a gotcha moment. However, I answered honestly so don't name call.
And finally what I feel about it is immaterial. It's the woman's answer to those questions that count. And it's none of your business nor mine how she decides.

---

You are correct that what you feel about it is immaterial. You are incorrect in the idea that those answers change based on the opinion of "the woman." How the woman feels about whether a fetus is alive or human or has rights is also immaterial as it relates to he truth or falsity of those statements.

A fetus is alive or not without regard for anyone's feelings.
A human fetus is human or not without regard for anyone's feelings.
Living humans have rights without regard for anyone's feelings about whether they do or not.

In your view, when does a fetus become a human?

MilliVanilli said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

We have turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

You really think I'm a powerful person.

And you have a shallow grasp of pro-life if you think there aren't tens of thousands of people yearning to adopt.
Yearning and actively seeking to bring needy women in crisis to comfort through a crisis pregnancy center, church, individual, or a safe house or even Ronald McDonald House.

I've denied no one a thing, it's some strange straw man you're busy attacking.

And you're pretty sanctimonious to assume people that call abortion out for what it is are somehow disinterested in the life of a child, it appears your narrow view of interest means it must come through a welfare state.

This lack of nuance, curiosity and imagination plagues those that cry out for the nanny state as the solution to all of man's ills.

If you are pro-life as you assert, why don't you actively steward needy women into pro-life support?

Why don't you rebuke the modern left for abandoning that ethic it once held dear and that gave liberalism credibility?

---

. Thank you for your service to birth moms and their babies. It must very rewarding. But in the economy of scale there are not enough Millis.

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

We have turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

You really think I'm a powerful person.

And you have a shallow grasp of pro-life if you think there aren't tens of thousands of people yearning to adopt.
Yearning and actively seeking to bring needy women in crisis to comfort through a crisis pregnancy center, church, individual, or a safe house or even Ronald McDonald House.

I've denied no one a thing, it's some strange straw man you're busy attacking.

And you're pretty sanctimonious to assume people that call abortion out for what it is are somehow disinterested in the life of a child, it appears your narrow view of interest means it must come through a welfare state.

This lack of nuance, curiosity and imagination plagues those that cry out for the nanny state as the solution to all of man's ills.

If you are pro-life as you assert, why don't you actively steward needy women into pro-life support?

Why don't you rebuke the modern left for abandoning that ethic it once held dear and that gave liberalism credibility?

---

. Thank you for your service to birth moms and their babies. It must very rewarding. But in the economy of scale there are not enough Millis.

---

So dead babies and devastated mothers are better than hypothetical shortages of adoptions or hypothetical socioeconomic upbringings.

No one's circumstances can be overcome, only interpreting an abortion as a mercy killing is in order for a perceived lack of adoptions or welfare state...

Waco1947 said:

---

We have not turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

. I left out an important word - Not

Waco1947 said:

---

We have not turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

So if the U.S. passed single payer and universal income, you would be against abortion?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

We have not turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

So if the U.S. passed single payer and universal income, you would be against abortion?

---

. I am already against abortion but I am also in favor women making their own health decisions. Paradoxical yes but a woman's decision on health is none of our business. One may object but it's none of our business

Waco1947 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

We have not turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

So if the U.S. passed single payer and universal income, you would be against abortion?

---

. I am already against abortion but I am also in favor women making their own health decisions. Paradoxical yes but a woman's decision on health is none of our business. One may object but it's none of our business

---

I was looking in vain for your answer to the question "when does a human fetus become human? It is essential to the question of when a fetus deserves protection as one of those neighbors Jesus said you are to love.

Waco1947 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

We have not turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

So if the U.S. passed single payer and universal income, you would be against abortion?

---

. I am already against abortion but I am also in favor women making their own health decisions. Paradoxical yes but a woman's decision on health is none of our business. One may object but it's none of our business

---

So you are full of **** . The points you raised above are meaningless to the discussion. Please delete and penalize yourself whatever you feel is appropriate.

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

God does not like murder, you know ....

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

I'm sorry but you do not occupy the God seat

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

We have not turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

So if the U.S. passed single payer and universal income, you would be against abortion?

---

. I am already against abortion but I am also in favor women making their own health decisions. Paradoxical yes but a woman's decision on health is none of our business. One may object but it's none of our business

---

I was looking in vain for your answer to the question "when does a human fetus become human? It is essential to the question of when a fetus deserves protection as one of those neighbors Jesus said you are to love.

---

I have my opinions but it's the woman's decision and none of your business

So .... all you got is .....nonsense. Absolutely no rebuttal just cussing

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

We have not turned our back on pro life. I am anti abortion but pro women's rights. It's a paradox to black and white folk.
What have yet to see is a pro life person become a Pro Child and mother supporter. It appears you are pro life until they leave the womb - 1) You deny contraception so adolescent females and women
2) you deny them paid maternity leave or education benefits
3) you deny them health care prenatal and post natal.
I am pro life and anti abortion and pro life after birth.

---

So if the U.S. passed single payer and universal income, you would be against abortion?

---

. I am already against abortion but I am also in favor women making their own health decisions. Paradoxical yes but a woman's decision on health is none of our business. One may object but it's none of our business

---

I was looking in vain for your answer to the question "when does a human fetus become human? It is essential to the question of when a fetus deserves protection as one of those neighbors Jesus said you are to love.

---

I have my opinions but it's the woman's decision and none of your business

---

It is your opinion that killing an unborn human offspring is acceptable. That much is clear. It is also clear that you believe a fetus is alive. If a living human fetus is not actually human, it must necessarily be something other than human. For some reason, you are trying to argue that a living fetus is not actually human. Let us assume for the sake of argument you are correct and a human fetus is not actually human. In you world, when does a human fetus become a human? It isn't a trick question.

In the same way that it is not a plantation owner's decision that made an enslaved person human or not, a woman cannot "decide" whether her unborn offspring is human or not.

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

God forgives when we repent. God does not condone sin which is loved and promoted.

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

Well, I will grant you that Milli & Forest are quite a pair at name calling-bet they claim to be evangelical Christians. Also, very judgmental. But that's their problem. I have worked with abused & neglected children through the court system for 40 plus years and no, middle class so-called Christian evangelicals do not want children with physical or emotional problems. So you just keep on spouting your non factual horse bananas. Many of these unwanted children end up in the State's penal system. But keep on drinking the koolaid served up by your leader trump---

---

1) Didn't vote for Trump.

2) Nothing you say is reliable.

3) I personally know multiple people at church that have adopted babies with issues. Same for the last church I went too. You just don't know what you are talking about.

The guy that just adopted the child that had fetal alcohol syndrome, has 3 other children all with some issue.

Another man at church adopted a child with fetal alcohol syndrome, he has some issues, but is in Jr. High and can really hit on the football field. Yes the child has developmental issues, but he is doing as well as possible.

Your remarks have no grounding.

NAME CALLING.

You republican right wing loonies If you want to see what evil really looks like, go stand in front of a mirror and get a good look at yourselves. you're sounding like totalitarians and neo-nazis.

If you can't take a punch, don't start out with this garbage, once the gloves are dropped, you have no standing to claim someone else is "name calling".

I just called you a "clueless clown" I will stand with that, not even a 1/10th of what you threw down.

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

If abortion is simply a choice that is no one else's business, there is no sin to forgive.

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

If you repent, not if you shamelessly murder and call it a right.

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

What sin are you talking about?