Alabama’s Draconian Abortion Ban Has Women On Twitter Ready To Fight

I did. Four posts later after I received clarity on the question that was asked.

 

It's already illegal isn't it?

I explained why - because it wouldn't be from consensual procreation.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, because making it illegal is a waste of time and unnecessary...

I said nothing different.

That doesn't explain why it has less value.


But for your information a fetus only has the value the woman it's in places on it....a rape victim may value the fetus as she would value any fetus.




Why does calling a fetus by it's correct name make you so UNCOMFORTABLE?

 

Are you still under the impression that 'baby' is a scientific term?

When have I said that I don't consider it a fetus before birth? It IS. That is the scientific term which both you and I use. It's just that you can't bring yourself to think of the fetus as a baby as it travels down the birth canal, even though it is IDENTICAL to what it is after coming out!

 

Oh, you had no real point, I should've known.

You have no real point when you start telling others what they think.....this will be a shock to you but you can't read minds....


AND, AGAIN, you must not have any idea or knowledge of what happens at birth if you think a fetus is identical to a baby...

 

How is making abortion after viability illegal a waste of time? You mean it STILL causes a waste of time?

 

What did I tell you what you think?

What do you think is the physical difference between a fetus as it is travelling down the birth canal and when it comes out?

 

Right here:
chris155au said: ↑
Are you still under the impression that 'baby' is a scientific term?
When have I said that I don't consider it a fetus before birth? It IS. That is the scientific term which both you and I use. It's just that you can't bring yourself to think of the fetus as a baby as it travels down the birth canal, even though it is IDENTICAL to what it is after coming out!""""""""

I have posted what happens physically to a fetus as it is born twice before.....if you can't look it up for yourself then , it appears, you simply don't want to admit there are changes...that is very bad basis for your "argument"...

 

Okay... so then you DO think of it as a baby?

You mean when it is detached from the umbilical cord? I think that you've said this more than twice.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Right here:
chris155au said: ↑
Are you still under the impression that 'baby' is a scientific term?
When have I said that I don't consider it a fetus before birth? It IS. That is the scientific term which both you and I use. It's just that you can't bring yourself to think of the fetus as a baby as it travels down the birth canal, even though it is IDENTICAL to what it is after coming out!""""""""

So you can't admit I proved that you claimed to know what I was thinking?????

You don't understand this but when all you have to say is "" I think that you've said this more than twice""...it shows you have nothing.


It also shows that you never saw my posts on what happens during birth because you keep insisting that the ONLY thing that happens is the umbilical cored gets cut....that indicates that you have no knowledge of what happens during birth..

 

Sure I did, but only because you've made it clear that it is what you think. Anyway, I could've misunderstood you, so here's your chance to make it clear - do you think of it as a baby as it travels down the birth canal?

Well then tell me what you're referring to.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So you can't admit I proved that you claimed to know what I was thinking?????

,


NO, you did NOT.

NO, that was your skewed interpretation.

What difference does it make to anything?

Are you UNCOMFORTABLE googling what happens during the birth process???

 

You think that the mother should come back and assassinate the child?

 

He sure makes it look that way...….(???)

 

She is far more likely to form a blood clot...

https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/blood-clots-and-pregnancy.aspx

 

I am confused if you believe that a ZEF is the same as a baby then it would be OK to kill the toddler of a rapist.

 

Nothing like mansplaining

 

Cute

 

Your pro-life pals are bringing law itself into disrepute, especially with stuff like charging a woman with manslaughter who lost her fetus when another woman shot her. I don't care what law you manage to pass, I would never convict the woman. Never. Even if she was obviously guilty.

 

When the fetus clears the birth canal, and is no longer dependent upon the woman carrying it, the becomes a person. Before then, it isn't a person. Call it whatever you want before or after birth. Pro-lifers are interfering in the lives of pregnant women.

 

Already, women is communities and states where abortion is unavailable are getting private assistance from other women. Money is no problem. Clearly, a law banning abortion is ultimately unenforceable.

 

This censorship is unbecoming of a "political forum". YouTube is a better place for honest debate. Even Twitter for that matter. What kind of political forum wont even let you even have a moral debate and state the implications of what is being debated? As well as form conclusions based on the debate trend?

I cant say that someone is advocating infanticide when they argue for abortion all the way up until birth? Reminds me why I hate this forum. Politics by nature is divisive. And different political views offend different people.
You cant have an honest political debates when overzealous moderators implement their overly subjective notion of "flamebating".

See you guys never

 

No, but I'm wondering why YOU don't think that the mother should arrange to have their unwanted kid killed BEFORE the kid gets to the orphanage and has a bad life.

 

Yeah that was an unbelievable story. I condemn the charges against her.

Guilty of what?

 

If it is dependent upon the woman until a natural birth, then how are babies able to survive independently after a premature c-section?

How?