There is still so much killing left to be done

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/euthanasia-could-save-canada-millions-healthcare-costs

corncob pipe said:

---

---

^^^ How would you like for that to have been your life to this point?

That's scary

TFW you know you want abortions at 6 years old

Like mother like daughter

ValhallaBear said:

---

TFW you know you want abortions at 6 years old

Like mother like daughter

---

Methodist church opposed abortion?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

---

It was the Supreme Court. Not liberals. They ruled it's none of your business and that ticks you off.

---

Nope. SCOTUS made it legal. Liberals made it mass murder.

You have a bloody soul, Waco.

---

SCOTUS made it possible They ruled it none of your business. Shall the government make your health decisions for you? You never have these two questions
1) Is a woman's abortion decision any of your business? The sCOTUS RULED No
2) Do you want the government making your health decisions ?

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

---

It was the Supreme Court. Not liberals. They ruled it's none of your business and that ticks you off.

---

Nope. SCOTUS made it legal. Liberals made it mass murder.

You have a bloody soul, Waco.

---

SCOTUS made it possible They ruled it none of your business. Shall the government make your health decisions for you? You never have these two questions
1) Is a woman's abortion decision any of your business? The sCOTUS RULED No
2) Do you want the government making your health decisions ?

---

Chelsea left UMC because they oppose abortion?

ValhallaBear said:

---

TFW you know you want abortions at 6 years old

Like mother like daughter

---

Young people don't know how scary the girl in that picture could become in their lives, yet!

Hard to imagine Hillary was once young and equally attractive as a governor's wife in Arkansas. I remember thinking how attractive Hillary was, having no clue the damage she'd eventually do to our country

Time flies

Getting an abortion is kinda like a bad dentist appointment...

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

---

It was the Supreme Court. Not liberals. They ruled it's none of your business and that ticks you off.

---

Nope. SCOTUS made it legal. Liberals made it mass murder.

You have a bloody soul, Waco.

---

SCOTUS made it possible They ruled it none of your business. Shall the government make your health decisions for you? You never have these two questions
1) Is a woman's abortion decision any of your business? The sCOTUS RULED No
2) Do you want the government making your health decisions ?

---

Well, we know Waco never attended law school.

The phrase none of your business" does not appear in the decision in any place.

The ruling very clearly made federal government interference the new policy. Prior to Roe v Wade, the law was that the federal government stayed out of abortion decisions. So Roe v Wade did the opposite of what Waco claims - it created the practice of federal interference in the matter.

But we really can't expect honesty from someone who uses the phrase 'reproductive health' to describe killing a living being.

Jack Bauer said:

---

Getting an abortion is kinda like a bad dentist appointment...

---

Is blue dress thankful her mom didn't have an abortion or does she wish Mom had aborted her?

That would be my first question to her

The left is so much better at creating and using euphemisms than is the right. "Just sucked the pregnancy out" may be the best one yet.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

---

It was the Supreme Court. Not liberals. They ruled it's none of your business and that ticks you off.

---

Nope. SCOTUS made it legal. Liberals made it mass murder.

You have a bloody soul, Waco.

---

SCOTUS made it possible They ruled it none of your business. Shall the government make your health decisions for you? You never have these two questions
1) Is a woman's abortion decision any of your business? The sCOTUS RULED No
2) Do you want the government making your health decisions ?

---

Chelsea left UMC because they oppose abortion?

---

Baptist Church.

Doc Holliday said:

---

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5

---

Are you saying you believe the Jewish god forms babies in the womb?

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

---

This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!

---

One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?

Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.

---

Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.

No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.

If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

It's not "petty" to be frustrated with someone who refuses to pay attention. You're not listening. You're just waiting for your chance to call someone a baby killer.

---

The reason the question is reasonable, is that to accomplish anything, people need to be able to state clear positions. Some will evade clarity, such as Waco. Others take a clear position, but refuse to consider any other as valid, like Golem. Some, like quash, are simply dishonest and hope you never find out.

I like to provoke discussion. The problem in this issue is not that someone uses contraception, or wants babies to live, but that there are people and groups which manipulate opinion for power and money.

Planned Parenthood, for example, is a ghoulish mercenary organization which kills more than the Marlboro company did, yet presents a lie in its very name.

The Governor of Virginia actually defended killing a child after its birth, but he's only in trouble with liberals because he wore blackface and possibly dressed as a KKK member in a school photo.

There was a time when religious groups shamed women who had abortions, but that was decades ago. Now, the only shaming is by hypocrites who refuse to acknowledge the fetus feels its death, let alone that the fetus is human.

President Clinton made a popular statement that he believed abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Since that statement, many liberals have abandoned the last two parts of that statement, and I find that appalling for any nation which claims to have sound moral foundations.

---

I've used the phrase "legal, safe, and rare" in this exact thread. You're acting like...

You really haven't listened to a thing I've said.

Wow. Just.... wow.

Keep up with your judgements and assessments of others. I'm going to bow out. It's not like you've bothered to listen to anything I've said anyway. God bless. Sincerely. God bless.

---

So much whine in your posts, BBL. I have always been clear, and Waco is extremely dishonest on matters of abortion, which is why I rebuke him on his lies.

I never called you a 'baby killer'. But when you lined up with Waco, I asked for clarification to help you make clear your difference with one who does support killing all the way to labor (and possibly after birth), and you exploded into an emotional rant which is, as I said, unfortunate in the context of your former posts.

You seem to love playing a victim here. That's not a good look for you, BBL.

There are a range of opinions on abortion, from some on one end who oppose contraception as immoral to some on the other end who quite literally support killing an infant. Well over 98% of us stand somewhere in between those poles, and it's not a straight-line spectrum anyway, because of real-life considerations and conditions which never fit neatly into theoretical constructions.

The reason so many people end up unhappy, is that the law applies hypothetical decisions to real-life conditions. As a result, changes in the law meant to protect women who suffered rape or incest or whose lives were endangered, a very few, have been abused to allow killing for convenience. Reasonable changes, like requiring clinics to have at least one credentialed surgeon on premises in case something goes wrong, or protection for a child once they are born, are opposed by partisans who see only political posturing.

I am really sorry for you, BBL, if you cannot see this dimension of the matter.

---

You're whining about me whining. You serious, man?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

It's not "petty" to be frustrated with someone who refuses to pay attention. You're not listening. You're just waiting for your chance to call someone a baby killer.

---

The reason the question is reasonable, is that to accomplish anything, people need to be able to state clear positions. Some will evade clarity, such as Waco. Others take a clear position, but refuse to consider any other as valid, like Golem. Some, like quash, are simply dishonest and hope you never find out.

I like to provoke discussion. The problem in this issue is not that someone uses contraception, or wants babies to live, but that there are people and groups which manipulate opinion for power and money.

Planned Parenthood, for example, is a ghoulish mercenary organization which kills more than the Marlboro company did, yet presents a lie in its very name.

The Governor of Virginia actually defended killing a child after its birth, but he's only in trouble with liberals because he wore blackface and possibly dressed as a KKK member in a school photo.

There was a time when religious groups shamed women who had abortions, but that was decades ago. Now, the only shaming is by hypocrites who refuse to acknowledge the fetus feels its death, let alone that the fetus is human.

President Clinton made a popular statement that he believed abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Since that statement, many liberals have abandoned the last two parts of that statement, and I find that appalling for any nation which claims to have sound moral foundations.

---

I've used the phrase "legal, safe, and rare" in this exact thread. You're acting like...

You really haven't listened to a thing I've said.

Wow. Just.... wow.

Keep up with your judgements and assessments of others. I'm going to bow out. It's not like you've bothered to listen to anything I've said anyway. God bless. Sincerely. God bless.

---

So much whine in your posts, BBL. I have always been clear, and Waco is extremely dishonest on matters of abortion, which is why I rebuke him on his lies.

I never called you a 'baby killer'. But when you lined up with Waco, I asked for clarification to help you make clear your difference with one who does support killing all the way to labor (and possibly after birth), and you exploded into an emotional rant which is, as I said, unfortunate in the context of your former posts.

You seem to love playing a victim here. That's not a good look for you, BBL.

There are a range of opinions on abortion, from some on one end who oppose contraception as immoral to some on the other end who quite literally support killing an infant. Well over 98% of us stand somewhere in between those poles, and it's not a straight-line spectrum anyway, because of real-life considerations and conditions which never fit neatly into theoretical constructions.

The reason so many people end up unhappy, is that the law applies hypothetical decisions to real-life conditions. As a result, changes in the law meant to protect women who suffered rape or incest or whose lives were endangered, a very few, have been abused to allow killing for convenience. Reasonable changes, like requiring clinics to have at least one credentialed surgeon on premises in case something goes wrong, or protection for a child once they are born, are opposed by partisans who see only political posturing.

I am really sorry for you, BBL, if you cannot see this dimension of the matter.

---

You're whining about me whining. You serious, man?

---

I'm not whining, BBL. I'm trying to go back to having a discussion like adults.

So back to the meat of my posts, maybe you can speak on the subject?

There are a range of opinions on abortion, from some on one end who oppose contraception as immoral to some on the other end who quite literally support killing an infant. Well over 98% of us stand somewhere in between those poles, and it's not a straight-line spectrum anyway, because of real-life considerations and conditions which never fit neatly into theoretical constructions.

The reason so many people end up unhappy, is that the law applies hypothetical decisions to real-life conditions. As a result, changes in the law meant to protect women who suffered rape or incest or whose lives were endangered, a very few, have been abused to allow killing for convenience. Reasonable changes, like requiring clinics to have at least one credentialed surgeon on premises in case something goes wrong, or protection for a child once they are born, are opposed by partisans who see only political posturing.

Thanks in advance.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

---

This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!

---

One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?

Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.

---

Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.

No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.

If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.

---

This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5

---

Are you saying you believe the Jewish god forms babies in the womb?

---

Doc? Oldbear?

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5

---

Are you saying you believe the Jewish god forms babies in the womb?

---

Doc? Oldbear?

---

1. God forms babies in the womb, yes.

2. Anyone who thinks God is 'Jewish' is confused about how it all works.

ValhallaBear said:

---

TFW you know you want abortions at 6 years old

Like mother like daughter

---

Lifenewss misrepresents the UMC all the time. We do oppose abortion but we also believe in a woman's right to choose and oppose abortion as birth control. We also insist on counseling before that decision is made. I believe the wording is " A tragic choice of life against life."

Deliberate killing is generally prohibited by people of faith.

And what do you think a womb is made for, Waco?

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5

---

Are you saying you believe the Jewish god forms babies in the womb?

---

Doc? Oldbear?

---

Doc.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Deliberate killing is generally prohibited by people of faith.

And what do you think a womb is made for, Waco?

---

Quote:

---

Deliberate killing is generally prohibited by people of faith.

---

What about the god of the Jews, or Allah? He doesn't prohibit deliberate killing - he encourages or demands it at times doesn't he?

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Why is it dishonest?

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Why is it dishonest?

---

Check your Bible, Waco. Especially the parts where compassion and mercy are mentioned.

It may help to understand that abortion is pretty much the opposite of compassion and mercy.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Why is it dishonest?

---

Check your Bible, Waco. Especially the parts where compassion and mercy are mentioned.

It may help to understand that abortion is pretty much the opposite of compassion and mercy.

---

Thanks. I will check my Constitution. Oh your religion doesn't make policy.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Why is it dishonest?

---

Check your Bible, Waco. Especially the parts where compassion and mercy are mentioned.

It may help to understand that abortion is pretty much the opposite of compassion and mercy.

---

Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus

Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

---

This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!

---

One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?

Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.

---

Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.

No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.

If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.

---

This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."

---

First off, that wasn't ME using a "straw man." You were using an obviously extreme example that literally no one likes and passing it off as proof of a realistic threat (that's if she even did say that).

You were the one with the straw man. I merely took issue with it. If you're going to invoke terminology, please use it correctly.

Secondly, the rest of your "argument" that "there could be" a wave of women just chomping at the bit to get pregnant, wait 30 weeks and THEN have an abortion... just, y'know... cause feminism and man-hate and George Soros and stuff.

There is NO evidence of that. None. There is nothing to support your aspersions that there are just lots of women out there waiting and begging for late term abortions because they want to kill a healthy baby.

So BBL has abandoned reasoned discussion in favor of bitter rancor ...

Ah well, the subject has always been difficult to discuss,

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

---

This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!

---

One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?

Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.

---

Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.

No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.

If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.

---

This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."

---

First off, that wasn't ME using a "straw man." You were using an obviously extreme example that literally no one likes and passing it off as proof of a realistic threat (that's if she even did say that).

You were the one with the straw man. I merely took issue with it. If you're going to invoke terminology, please use it correctly.

Secondly, the rest of your "argument" that "there could be" a wave of women just chomping at the bit to get pregnant, wait 30 weeks and THEN have an abortion... just, y'know... cause feminism and man-hate and George Soros and stuff.

There is NO evidence of that. None. There is nothing to support your aspersions that there are just lots of women out there waiting and begging for late term abortions because they want to kill a healthy baby.

---

There aren't just lots of Jeffrey Dahmers out there waiting to torture people to death, either. I guess that's a pretty good argument for making it legal, since it isn't a huge problem or anything.