Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
glassjester
Well-known member
And... are infants productive citizens?
eider
Well-known member
Oh dear......
You're obvious diversion and obfuscation shows me that your pro-life tenet ends at each infants birth, and at that point you seem to 'wander off' to point self righteously at the next pregnant woman, not truly caring for all children's lives, or all the disabled-at-birth.
But I do thank you because your -11 day comparison to a +11 day infant really clicked with me. You just din't really mean it 'all the way'. In my opinion you're just a Cop-Out on that score.
---------------------------------
Now, since you seek to divert the conversation away from Full Pro-Life and Full Whole-Life-Disabled care (and I can see why) to 'your right to be alive', could I ask you to shout that very loudly just before the virus, the cancer, the racing truck, the gas-leak explosion, or whatever ...... takes you?
Trust me when I tell you that Fate, Nature, God... will not listen to your arrogant demands for a right to life.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
eider
Well-known member
What./... 'a right to life'?
Oh..... that was handled in under fifty words.
No need for a thread on that.
:idunno:
As it should be. Now connect that declaration to abortion sans innuendo nor any specific appeal to the dramatic...and it may be relevant.
Last edited:
Who's claiming anything about contingencies...keeping a child clothed, fed and protected should simply be a pro-life virtue...an act of compassion so expressed per pro-life ideology. Agree?
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes, definitely.
But Eider seems to be arguing that if the government does not provide free healthcare to all children, then we should legalize the killing of children.
Do you agree with that? I don't.
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you think killing children should be legalized, if free healthcare is not provided by the government?
I don't see that as his argument in the least.
Rather his argument illustrates the shallowness of those particlar individuals who hoist the ideals of 'pro-life' as mere political efforts at prohibiting abortion. As such any practical reverence for "life" is left at the politcal, anti-choice doorstep. In short, your selective use of the pro-life moniker is shallow, convenient and disingenuous.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
sounds good to me - i don't think women should be allowed to kill their children when they're adults either :idunno:
Eagles Wings
New member
As usual, you haven't a clue, ole' boy.
glassjester
Well-known member
Perhaps Eider will end the suspense with an answer.
Eider - do you think killing of children should be legalized, if the government won't provide free healthcare?
As usual you're strong on assertion, short on details.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Read Eider's quote via doser atop this page.
glassjester
Well-known member
It's interesting that if anyone other than the mother gets the fetus killed, they can be charged with homicide.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
That means if somebody got in a car accident with a woman on her way to her abortion appointment, they could be jailed for killing the human being in her uterus. But if she'd made it safely to the abortion clinic, the doctor would only be guilty of killing a "blob of cells."
Insane.
Eagles Wings
New member
I leave the details to you, and it's obvious your assertion is pro-death for the preborn.
I won't take the bait on the idiot notion that the pro-life movement is inactive, non-politically.
HHHMMMMM... Are there any Buddhists For Life?
glassjester
Well-known member
That's a relief doser.lain:
Don't you see?
That's why pro-lifers aren't arguing for the right to life for born people. It's not due to convenience or because being pro-life is shallow or disingenuous. It's because born people already have the right to live.
Would you criticize a fireman for not carrying people out of all buildings, instead of just the burning ones?
Nonsense.