Waco1947 said:

---

You may be "talking about the baby's body" but the woman is here first and she has the right to her own health decisions. The government can not say "You're pregnant. You lose control of your body. You have to carry to term."

---

That is a terrible argument. At what point does the mother's claim of seniority stop and the baby finally has a right to claim a right to life?

Waco1947 said:

---

You may be "talking about the baby's body" but the woman is here first and she has the right to her own health decisions. The government can not say "You're pregnant. You lose control of your body. You have to carry to term."

---

All this means is you're comfortable with killing the most defenseless human beings.

Just admit when a baby is aborted that you enjoy it and think of the mother first. You clearly don't care about life.

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.

Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.

---

Yes it terminates a potential life BUT is it any of the government's business.? It's a simple question. Is it any of business of the government what a woman's decision is about her body? Is it any of any business of the government what decisions you make about your, men?

---

At some point, it is no longer a potential life. At some point it is a tiny human with a heart beat and brain function and it can survive outside the womb without the mother's support. At that point, it is no longer a "potential life". Labeling it as such is identical as how slave owners labeled slaves as property. It was a disgusting attempt by slave owners to claim rights to another human, just as a mother is trying to claim rights to an unborn baby.

Tell me, is there a point or circumstance when an abortion is unacceptable?

---

My wife's mama was a 16 year old chain smoker when my wife was born 3 months early and at about 2 lbs, this was 54 years ago. I'm guessing she was at 27 weeks, and was in whatever they called Intensive care for newborns back then for over a month. Someone watched her 24/7 to make sure she was always breathing.

Lets she, conceived out of wedlock, by a 16 year old chain smoker, born out of wedlock, sounds like she was in what so many consider the disposable category. Mama was, single, too young, to poor, to immature, too everything.

I saw my child's heart beating on the sonogram at what they said was 6 weeks. When you kill a being with a heartbeat you are killing. Your choice ends at someone else's life. Sure that is not the law, and certainly there are some cases where an abortion is the only option, tubal pregnancy and a few other issues. Certainly better birth control education is needed as are more effective methods of birth control. Is it ideal, no of course not, but as long as abortion is the law of the land, to reduce what people call "unwanted pregnancies", there needs to be a way to reduce pregnancies in people who are going to have sex anyway, even if they know the risks.

Jinx mentioned sterilization before, I think that is simply out of bounds, but effective birth control BEFORE pregnancy, is sure much better than birth control, in the form of an abortion, after you are pregnant. We all have to agree with that.

Osodecentx said:

---

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

This is the scary part if you are paying attention, and really care about the women involved.

While nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants are often highly capable at their work, it's vital to understand that they have no specific training, much less experience, in anesthesia or surgery.

And abortions, whatever else we disagree about, are certainly surgical procedures which use anesthesia.

This bill literally increases the risk of serious injury or death to women who choose to have an abortion performed.

That alone is reason to reject it as written.

The problem with the abortion is that leftists treat babies in the womb like tumors and everyone else treats them as what they will become...a fully developed functioning human being.

A life WILL exist without any intervention.

So this issue for me is infant rights. Infants cannot defend themselves and should have the benefit of the doubt to simply live over a woman's inconvenience.


Future will see this period as barbaric. They will see people like 47 as evil doers which they are. Deceivers worshiping man over God.

Watch this ***** lie:

This article didn't age well.

riflebear said:

---

---

Awesome!!!

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.

Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.

---

You're conflating two things.

This law, for the 1,000,000th time, only allows late term abortion when the fetus is no longer viable, or the life of the mother is in danger.

---

That isn't what it says

---

The section on late term abortion, yes. That's what it says.

---

This is from Snopes. Show me your link if you're not trolling.

Here is what it says. The "life of the mother" is no longer a requirement. It would allow a midwife to abort a healthy baby because the health of the mother is threatened, not just her life.

1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.


2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Are you trying to draw a distinction between "health of the mother" and "life of the mother"?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this ***** lie:

---

You're a Trump supporter... who cares about lying?

GTFO

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You may be "talking about the baby's body" but the woman is here first and she has the right to her own health decisions. The government can not say "You're pregnant. You lose control of your body. You have to carry to term."

---

Are you really not picking up on what we are talking about here?

In the video link that Jack Bauer posted, the discussion is on when the mother has the right to have an abortion. The question is asked what if the mother decides to abort during delivery. Medically they cannot safely stop the delivery process, so the baby is delivered - meaning it is completely outside of the mother's body.

Does the mother now have a right to "abort" this already born child because she made the decision while the baby was inside her?

---

I don't know. But again that decision is between the doctor and woman.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You may be "talking about the baby's body" but the woman is here first and she has the right to her own health decisions. The government can not say "You're pregnant. You lose control of your body. You have to carry to term."

---

Are you really not picking up on what we are talking about here?

In the video link that Jack Bauer posted, the discussion is on when the mother has the right to have an abortion. The question is asked what if the mother decides to abort during delivery. Medically they cannot safely stop the delivery process, so the baby is delivered - meaning it is completely outside of the mother's body.

Does the mother now have a right to "abort" this already born child because she made the decision while the baby was inside her?

---

I don't know. But again that decision is between the doctor and woman.

---

What about the sperm dono..errr father of the baby?
No bueno?

Forest Bueller said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.

Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.

---

Yes it terminates a potential life BUT is it any of the government's business.? It's a simple question. Is it any of business of the government what a woman's decision is about her body? Is it any of any business of the government what decisions you make about your, men?

---

At some point, it is no longer a potential life. At some point it is a tiny human with a heart beat and brain function and it can survive outside the womb without the mother's support. At that point, it is no longer a "potential life". Labeling it as such is identical as how slave owners labeled slaves as property. It was a disgusting attempt by slave owners to claim rights to another human, just as a mother is trying to claim rights to an unborn baby.

Tell me, is there a point or circumstance when an abortion is unacceptable?

---

My wife's mama was a 16 year old chain smoker when my wife was born 3 months early and at about 2 lbs, this was 54 years ago. I'm guessing she was at 27 weeks, and was in whatever they called Intensive care for newborns back then for over a month. Someone watched her 24/7 to make sure she was always breathing.

Lets she, conceived out of wedlock, by a 16 year old chain smoker, born out of wedlock, sounds like she was in what so many consider the disposable category. Mama was, single, too young, to poor, to immature, too everything.

I saw my child's heart beating on the sonogram at what they said was 6 weeks. When you kill a being with a heartbeat you are killing. Your choice ends at someone else's life. Sure that is not the law, and certainly there are some cases where an abortion is the only option, tubal pregnancy and a few other issues. Certainly better birth control education is needed as are more effective methods of birth control. Is it ideal, no of course not, but as long as abortion is the law of the land, to reduce what people call "unwanted pregnancies", there needs to be a way to reduce pregnancies in people who are going to have sex anyway, even if they know the risks.

Jinx mentioned sterilization before, I think that is simply out of bounds, but effective birth control BEFORE pregnancy, is sure much better than birth control, in the form of an abortion, after you are pregnant. We all have to agree with that.

---

I, like you, am thankful your wife was born. But that's your mother in law decision not applicable to every circumstance

Waco1947 said:

---

Again BBL
"
A woman should have some right to autonomy over her own body. You can believe that abortion is wrong and still believe that a person should have liberty over their body. "

---

For your consideration again

Waco1947 said:

---

BBL said it best "If you TRULY can't see how a woman would want control over her own body and what happens to it, if you won't even IMAGINE the point of view that a woman would want control over her own body, then you will truly never find common ground with anyone whose beliefs and point of view aren't completely congruent with your own. And in that case, you're dooming us all to an endless back-and-forth over this issue.

There HAS to be common ground. You won't even cede that we should invest into birth control and comprehensive sex education. From other posts of yours, I'm drawing conclusions on your feelings about welfare and public aid."

You're not pro-life. You're pro-birth.

---

And again

FormerFlash said:

---

A women's choice extends up until the point that another life is involved. Just like the rest of us. My decisions are my own and free from government regulation up until the point that my decisions impact the life and health of another. At that point we have a moral obligation as a civilized society to protect the life, health, and wellbeing of the other individual, and if need be, punish the offender.

---

Why is this so hard to understand?

BaylorOkie said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

A women's choice extends up until the point that another life is involved. Just like the rest of us. My decisions are my own and free from government regulation up until the point that my decisions impact the life and health of another. At that point we have a moral obligation as a civilized society to protect the life, health, and wellbeing of the other individual, and if need be, punish the offender.

---

Why is this so hard to understand?

---

There's a woman....there's a baby. They are 0% joined together.

Reminds me of this...

Never change MSM...

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You may be "talking about the baby's body" but the woman is here first and she has the right to her own health decisions. The government can not say "You're pregnant. You lose control of your body. You have to carry to term."

---

Are you really not picking up on what we are talking about here?

In the video link that Jack Bauer posted, the discussion is on when the mother has the right to have an abortion. The question is asked what if the mother decides to abort during delivery. Medically they cannot safely stop the delivery process, so the baby is delivered - meaning it is completely outside of the mother's body.

Does the mother now have a right to "abort" this already born child because she made the decision while the baby was inside her?

---

I don't know. But again that decision is between the doctor and woman.

---

You don't know?

Again, the question you still have not answered: Does a living, air-breathing, physicaly independent-from-its-mother baby have the same rights you do?

What about the father? Would he not have a say in the life or death discussion of his new-born child?

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

Nobody but nobody is an "abortion proponent." That's your silly fantasy and binary narrative. I just happen to come down on the side of women having the right to their own decisions. It's none of your business. You would want the same right, right?

---

A woman has a right to get pregnant or nor. My wife and I made that several times. Guess what? No one forced us to have sex or not have sex. We made those decisions. When we made the decision to engage in sexual intercourse, we were both prepared to accept the consequences.

Why aren't you?
Why aren't all women?

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Again BBL
"
A woman should have some right to autonomy over her own body. You can believe that abortion is wrong and still believe that a person should have liberty over their body. "

---

For your consideration again

---

She does. She chose to have sex, she should be responsible for the consequences.

fadskier said:

---

No one forced us to have sex or not have sex. We made those decisions. When we made the decision to engage in sexual intercourse, we were both prepared to accept the consequences.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.

Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.

---

You're conflating two things.

This law, for the 1,000,000th time, only allows late term abortion when the fetus is no longer viable, or the life of the mother is in danger.

---

That isn't what it says

---

The section on late term abortion, yes. That's what it says.

---

This is from Snopes. Show me your link if you're not trolling.

Here is what it says. The "life of the mother" is no longer a requirement. It would allow a midwife to abort a healthy baby because the health of the mother is threatened, not just her life.

1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.


2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Are you trying to draw a distinction between "health of the mother" and "life of the mother"?

---

Yes. The NY law dropped "life of the mother" and substituted "health of the mother'. Why would they do that?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this ***** lie:

---

You're a Trump supporter... who cares about lying?

GTFO

---

This one response sums up the character of Liberals and the corruption of your party.

When Republicans are exposed for lying they admit it and call each other out.

When Democrats are exposed for lying they don't care, they double down and the press gives them a pass and they high five each other because they know a lie spread much faster than the truth and you can't take it back.

Make this about the 500th thing liberals mocked Trump about that has come true.

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.

Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.

---

Yes it terminates a potential life BUT is it any of the government's business.? It's a simple question. Is it any of business of the government what a woman's decision is about her body? Is it any of any business of the government what decisions you make about your, men?

---

At some point, it is no longer a potential life. At some point it is a tiny human with a heart beat and brain function and it can survive outside the womb without the mother's support. At that point, it is no longer a "potential life". Labeling it as such is identical as how slave owners labeled slaves as property. It was a disgusting attempt by slave owners to claim rights to another human, just as a mother is trying to claim rights to an unborn baby.

Tell me, is there a point or circumstance when an abortion is unacceptable?

---

My wife's mama was a 16 year old chain smoker when my wife was born 3 months early and at about 2 lbs, this was 54 years ago. I'm guessing she was at 27 weeks, and was in whatever they called Intensive care for newborns back then for over a month. Someone watched her 24/7 to make sure she was always breathing.

Lets she, conceived out of wedlock, by a 16 year old chain smoker, born out of wedlock, sounds like she was in what so many consider the disposable category. Mama was, single, too young, to poor, to immature, too everything.

I saw my child's heart beating on the sonogram at what they said was 6 weeks. When you kill a being with a heartbeat you are killing. Your choice ends at someone else's life. Sure that is not the law, and certainly there are some cases where an abortion is the only option, tubal pregnancy and a few other issues. Certainly better birth control education is needed as are more effective methods of birth control. Is it ideal, no of course not, but as long as abortion is the law of the land, to reduce what people call "unwanted pregnancies", there needs to be a way to reduce pregnancies in people who are going to have sex anyway, even if they know the risks.

Jinx mentioned sterilization before, I think that is simply out of bounds, but effective birth control BEFORE pregnancy, is sure much better than birth control, in the form of an abortion, after you are pregnant. We all have to agree with that.

---

I, like you, am thankful your wife was born. But that's your mother in law decision not applicable to every circumstance

---

47, not saying it is in every single circumstance, but for the vast majority it is. Certainly if a child is already delivered, the momma has no right to kill them, it is a human being with full rights, guaranteed by the constitution. To debate that protection, is putting us in the vicinity of the nazi's.

If not nazi, then easily Eugenics.

Society is going to look back at us 100 years from now and wonder how we got so horrifyingly bloodthirsty.

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You may be "talking about the baby's body" but the woman is here first and she has the right to her own health decisions. The government can not say "You're pregnant. You lose control of your body. You have to carry to term."

---

That is a terrible argument. At what point does the mother's claim of seniority stop and the baby finally has a right to claim a right to life?

---

Bump

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

---

Right...and there were no slavery proponents either, just property rights proponents. And no racism proponents, just segregation proponents. The democrats have known how to promote despicable practices for a while now.

---

Wait.

Slavery does not equal "property rights"
Racism did not equal "segregation."

Really REALLY ****ty analogy.

---

Wait, you don't know that Democratic slave owners used property rights as a justification for slavery? Seriously? You really need to do some research.

---

No. I know that. And they were full of ***** Do you agree with them?

---

Absolutely. I think I've made that pretty clear. Just as I think the blanket statement that abortion if a women's health rights issue is bullsht. I'm not saying that in some instances that isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, but applying it to all abortions, as some pro-choicers have done, is a similar argument. Don't you agree.

---

No. I really don't. Owning a person is indefensible. It's bull**** legal arguments made in bad faith.

A woman should have some right to autonomy over her own body. You can believe that abortion is wrong and still believe that a person should have liberty over their body.

Those two concepts aren't completely mutually exclusive.

Arguing a person could be property is without defense.

---

Arguing a human life is a health decision by a woman in all circumstances is indefensible. It is morally equivalent to calling a human property. A woman is effectively saying the baby human inside her is her property and she should have the right to do with it whatever she wants. She is denying the rights we all believe in, in the name of her perceived rights. And just as slave owners made the argument the slaves weren't humans, but rather they were property, so it was ok to deny them basic human rights, some people are saying babies in the womb with a heart beat aren't human as a justification for denying them basic human rights.

And as a disclaimer again, I'm for abortion in some circumstances and within a certain time period, but in my mind it is irrational to deny human rights to babies at a certain point, just as denying human rights so slaves was irrational and despicable.

Do you believe an abortion is inappropriate under any circumstances?

---

No. I could see a scenario where an abortion is appropriate. There are many cases. A non-viable fetus, rape or incest, when the life of the mother is in jeopardy -and yes. I know at least one couple personally who has had to make that call. It's not a hypothetical.

Can you name ANY scenario where it is acceptable for one human being to own another?

I'll wait.

---

Did you even read my post? I've tried to be really reasonable in my discussion with you, but it is pretty obvious you aren't even reading my posts.

Reread what I said. I've said many times throughout our discussion that I believe an abortion in some circumstances is acceptable. Even in the post you quoted I said that. I'm not anti-abortion under any circumstance. I then asked you if there is ever a situation in your mind that an abortion is unacceptable.

I'll wait for your response. I answered your question even before you asked it.

---

Bump

Thank you for bumping 47's response.

What does being here first have to do with anything? Is the mother of a 2 year old allowed to kill her child because she was here first?

A 2 year old cannot survive on it's own. The state requires a parent to properly care for a 2 year old. Note this; The State requires a parent to use their time, skill, and BODY to care for a child. If the parent does not, they are charged with neglect. If the parent were to neglect their child enough that it were to die, the parent could be charged with murder.

What is the difference between a new born baby and a 2 year old?

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Again BBL
"
A woman should have some right to autonomy over her own body. You can believe that abortion is wrong and still believe that a person should have liberty over their body. "

---

For your consideration again

---

She does. She chose to have sex, she should be responsible for the consequences.

---

Come on... you can follow this to its logical conclusion....

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this ***** lie:

---

You're a Trump supporter... who cares about lying?

GTFO

---

This one response sums up the character of Liberals and the corruption of your party.

When Republicans are exposed for lying they admit it and call each other out.

When Democrats are exposed for lying they don't care, they double down and the press gives them a pass and they high five each other because they know a lie spread much faster than the truth and you can't take it back.

Make this about the 500th thing liberals mocked Trump about that has come true.

---

"Corruption of your party."

Lmao. Bless your heart.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this ***** lie:

---

You're a Trump supporter... who cares about lying?

GTFO

---

This one response sums up the character of Liberals and the corruption of your party.

When Republicans are exposed for lying they admit it and call each other out.

When Democrats are exposed for lying they don't care, they double down and the press gives them a pass and they high five each other because they know a lie spread much faster than the truth and you can't take it back.

Make this about the 500th thing liberals mocked Trump about that has come true.

---

"Corruption of your party."

Lmao. Bless your heart.

---

Do you personally think an abortion under any circumstance is UNacceptable?

I've already conceded several times that I think an abortion under some circumstances is acceptable.