If killing your baby was acceptable, would more women do it?

Wow. You are ignorant of what science says. Until you get educated...no one who has a brain could take what you say seriously. You can be pro-abortion...but go do some homework on this...educate yourself. Cause that which is in the womb is human. Science says so....

Funny my niece was born at 23 1/2 weeks...and when she was born...she wasn't a human being. What was she?

 

Again...we must punish those fornicators!!! Those SINNERS!!!!!!!!

But seriously, why? Because of the huge hypocricy. God created all life, not just humans. Humans routinely take the life of other creatures. Humans routinely take the life of other humans, many times with apparent glee (shock and awe?) Humans don't mind taking the life of a self aware adult human, but take the life of a being that doesn't even know it's alive yet? Tisk......

Do you eat eggs?

When everyone starts being consistant about the "precious" quality of life, then maybe...

But for now, man breeds uncontrollably, when an entity is in such over abundance as is man, it is not by any means precious any more than a grain of sand is precious. Man is taxing the world resources and killing off all other wildlife. I see more of a problem with not culling the herd than I see with enforced "making the population problem worse"

 

It's human shaped carbon based life. Once it's born and becomes self aware, then I'd call it "human".

Of course thats my opinion. You are allowed to disagree, preferrably without being insulting.

 

you back again .. got any evidence for children being taught how to have sex yet?

 

The population problem is a myth generated by people who seek to excuse genocide.

Try again.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I provided it. That you choose to pretend that telling a 10-year-old child that putting a penis in another person's anus = anal sex, is somehow not *teaching* is not my problem. It appears you may have a learning disability, or perhaps English isn't your first language.

Here:
"teach verb \ˈtēch\
taught \ˈtȯt\ teach·ing
Definition of TEACH
transitive verb
1a : to cause to know something <taught them a trade> b : to cause to know how <is teaching me to drive> c : to accustom to some action or attitude <teach students to think for themselves> d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action <I'll teach you to come home late>
2: to guide the studies of
3: to impart the knowledge of <teach algebra>
4a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted <experience teaches us our limitations>
5: to conduct instruction regularly in <teach school> "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teach

 

which is propagada to justiify irresponsible breeding. Go ahead...tell me there aren't enough people in this world.

 

Well the Tutsi people are certainly in dire straits, as are American Indians....quick plant abortion clinics on the reservations and in Rwanda...

Oh, silly me...too late. You guys already have your foot in that door.

 

I didn't say it wasn't teaching, I said they don't teach how to have sex .. so please refrain from trying to put words into my mouth, you are the one who says they are teaching kids how to have sex, you prove it.

Nope, no argument on the word teaching, its that little word you put in - how

So they are teaching about anal sex
they are teaching about contraception
they are teaching about abortion
they are teaching about abstinence

they are not teaching how to have sex, they are teaching about sex, if you choose to pretend there isn't a difference then it would appear you have a learning disability, or perhaps English is not your first language.
either way you can't be helped.

Oh and by the way and on par with your views on comments.. please post links to evidence that kids are being taught how to have anal sex.

 

Hmmmm...so telling a child that anal sex takes place when one person's penis is inserted into another person's anus isn't teaching them HOW to have anal sex?

Lol. Okie dokey.

So tell me...HOW does one have anal sex?

Oh, wait...I know...one puts one's penis into another person's anus.

Explain the difference again?


And I already provided the links that showed exactly how teachers are teaching children to have sex. It's what we're talking about now, as you know.

 

Anal sex is a good way to prevent pregnancy don't you think ?

 

Those links did not prove that teachers are teaching how to have sex, they showed that teachers are teaching about sex . .for someone who says they are very good at English, you sure don't know the difference between teaching about something and teaching how to do something.

as to explaining the difference, already have, if you can't take that in that's your problem not mine

 

There is a big difference between a late term abortion and terminating a pregnancy in the early stages.

A single human cell, or a couple of living human cells, is not the same as a living human.

 

How ironic that you would bring up the genocide of the American Indians in a "life is precious" abortion thread.

 

I'm not the one trying to claim that there are *too many people* in the world.

 

So what do you think, are there too many people in the world?

 

I already said what I think. If I have to say everything twice, this could take a really long time.

 

Then just link to where you said it before . .you know like you ask others to provide links to their evidence, and if you have already said it then its evidence to your opinion. Easy really.

 

Oh RightToLife, I do love how defensive you get. But as I said in my thread I'll say the same thing in this one. Show the facts. Find a link that says abortion is killing a human being which is proven scientifically, not just religiously. If you do I will be the first one up at Washington, DC fighting to tell congress they are allowing human beings to be murdered.

 

I don't think it's necessary to link back to your OWN comments that have been made in the thread in which you're discussing an issue. Threads are ongoing discussions that presumably you've been keeping up with before you blab. In debate, one doesn't provide *evidence* of comments made between the debaters in the debate in which they are currently participating.

In other words, it's stupid to say "Prove you said that!" in a discussion that both are participating in.

Seriously. Take a class or something.

 

Proving a negative.

Abortionists have never proven that the unborn are anything OTHER than a human being. People have recognized the humanity of the unborn from the beginning of time. The argument is dishonest, because ultimately, the death cult doesn't give a rat's butt if it's a human or not. They still maintain that one person can justify killing another person, based upon the *value* of that person...and *value* exists on a sliding scale for them. There are the people like them...who have a LOT of value...and then there are the people they aren't so interested in or who they perceive as a drag upon their resources......who have zero value. They maintain that the folks with a lot of value have the *right* to dispose of those deemed *valueless* at their will.

It's just might makes right. Mob rule. Fascism.

 

Oh really you don't think its necessary .. how presumptuous of you, when a thread gets to 700 comments I suspect even you cannot remember every single comment made.
Of course if you have no wish to try and make the debate flow along a little easier then so be it . .oh and you will find that in a debate, referrals to previous comments are very common and you will rarely find, except for those with a certain amount of arrogance, that someone will not re-post a comment for clarification or as evidence, I know I would, but hey that's me.

Again you also try to add some asinine sensationalism to a pretty standard request, the addition of something I actually never said and then to place a exclamation mark at the end really is a very low dishonest trick to try and pull .. but to be expected from you.

again more asinine rubbish.

 

It's not presumptuous of me at all. Your obvious handicap when it comes to intelligent discussion and debate has been noted. But it's not my responsibility to make up for your basic lack of understanding. Again, just take a class and save me, and everybody else, the trouble of trying to educate you on the fly.

Here's how it works:

If you make a claim in the course of a debate ("I'm the smartest person in the world") and someone challenges it, ("Please provide evidence") then the onus is upon you, the one who made the original (now challenged) claim to prove it. You prove that via citations and links to supporting evidence.

If you have provided that supporting evidence, and then someone says "your source is crap" then the onus is on them to prove it.

Are you getting an idea of how this works?

To respond to "Please confirm that you are the smartest person in the world" with "I don't have to prove it, you're just a ninny-hammer for asking" is to admit you have no evidence, and therefore your claim is discredited.

Now, say we have two people over the course of a couple of days talking back and forth in, say, a thread on an internet discussion board. And say one references a previous comment.

If you haven't read the thread, the onus is NOT on them to *prove* they made the comment. If you suspect a lie, then you are welcome to say "You are lying, you never said that, I know because I read the thread". But generally, people who *require* posters to prove that they said something within a thread they're both participating in are just trying to muddy the waters, and provide busy work for their opponent, in order to distract from the fact that they themselves are not able to keep up.

In other words, the thread is open. If you make the allegation that I'm lying about something I said, then I would pull it up to prove otherwise. If you're just too lazy to look something up, too bad. You seem to be operating under the delusion that it's my obligation to post everything repeatedly for you, to save you the trouble of actually perusing the thread you're trying to hijack.

 

As yours has been as well . .alongside your arrogance and presumption.

True, others have to to that for you to understand.

Arrogance to extreme.

Ok, please prove that I asked you to "prove" you made the comment . .evidence please.

Lets follow the exchange of comments shall we;

Please show me where in that exchange, or anywhere in this thread you answered the question "So what do you think, are there too many people in the world?" . .you cannot, so your reply was in fact a lie.

The rest of your outburst is just more smoke and mirrors to detract from the question you failed to answer .. you are not worth the time or energy, your are a dishonest poster .. goodbye.

 

"I'm not the one trying to claim that there are *too many people* in the world."

Whereupon you stupidly ask, "so what do you think, are there too many people in the world?"

Uh, no, which is why I said "I'm NOT the one trying to claim there are too many people in the world."

I can see your confusion is caused primarily by difficulty understanding what you read. I'll give you some time to absorb that.

Do you understand the word "NOT"?

"not adverb \&#712;nät\
Definition of NOT
1&#8212;used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word
2&#8212;used as a function word to stand for the negative of a preceding group of words <is sometimes hard to see and sometimes not> "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/not

Like I said, if I have to state everything twice, and look up every word you don't understand, we're not going to get anywhere.

 

and neither do you make any statement as to what you are actually claiming .. but hey I'm sure you are content in your arrogance.