The Basics, Abortion is a Homicide, Face that Fact

Nowhere in that law is the term "human being" used to indicate the unborn child, and nowhere does it use the word "person" for that purpose either. So you just blew your whole argument again.

 

The Basics, Abortion is a Homicide, Face that Fact

The Basics, Abortion is not a Homicide or many women would now be in Prison.....Face the Fact.

 

Abortion is legal. Abortion doesn't kill a baby. Abortions will never be stopped. "Pro-lifers" are anti-science.

 

So true!

You are correct when you say these hilariously named "Pro-Lifers" don't put their money where their yaps are.


In Minnesota the Republicans are fighting the Democrat governor because he wants state workers to get a 6 week maternity leave.

It would cost around 2 million , which is a drop in the bucket compared to other expenses in a state with repeated surpluses and the cost of hiring human beings.


The Repubs HATE IT...

A professor of pediatrics said:


" Denying new mothers the opportunity to nurture and protect their newborns...without fear of losing their income or employment is an unconscionable stance rooted in politics rather than HUMANITY....""



Maybe you and I should keep asking these Anti-Choicers if want to explain to me how that is Pro-LIFE????

 

Hard to claim that they are "pro family values" when they obviously don't care about new family members one iota!

 

I wonder if we'll get a Anti-Choicer to explain how that (post 154) is "pro-LIFE"?....or will they avoid it at all costs....I say they avoid it frantically...

 

In order to call all abortion "homocide" you first need to show that a Homo sapiens/human/child exists.

In the early stages of pregnancy this is a tall order. There is no consensus among subject matter experts that a single human cell (aka- the zygote) is a human.

Your post commits a fallacy (assuming the premise) by assuming that a child exists at conception.

 

Maternity leave is important and state workers should get what the rest of us are getting. 6 weeks sounds reasonable to me.

I have issues with both parties when it comes to freedom. Trying to ban abortion is an overreach into our freedom. Democrats do the same with excessive taxes and gun laws. We should have as little government interference in our lives as possible.

 

I just learned that Republicans repealed the law that kept guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, those who can't even live on their own. I have a friend who is a caretaker in one of the homes where people like that live. One has anger issues and routinely punches holes in the walls.....and you want these people to have guns....well, at least you don't claim to be "pro-life"

 

You are incorrect. There are already measures in place to keep dangerous people from legally buying firearms. The ACLU backed this because it unfairly painted all who have mental disorders as violent. My father in law served in Vietnam and has PTSD. While he may lose sleep, he has never been violent. To assume that my respect for his second amendment rights means that I think your violent friend should have guns is absurd.

This overreaching policy would also prevent people from seeking treatment fearing they would lost their right to defend themselves.

Whenever someone points across the isle to criticize for overreaching, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

NO, the Republicans repealed a law that made it illegal for people so mentally unstable that they couldn't live on their own........yes, Let's arm them and when they have an issue let them shoot it out....so, sooooo"pro-Life"....NOT.

Just because ONE person hasn't become violent SO FAR doesn't mean none do and it would be ridiculous to think otherwise...


So let's arm the mentally unstable and hope we're not in the line of fire when their toast is burnt.....your father does NOT represent every mentally unstable person....

 

You clearly do not understand this issue. You are making the same mistake by putting those with mental disorders in the same category as the mentally unstable. That is the reason this overreaching measure had to be repealed.

Do you support the second amendment for those with no mental issues?

 

I believe it's the *severely* mentally ill that weren't allowed to legally own guns.

I support the right of people with no violent record and no severe mental illness to own guns.

 

The law repealed said UNSTABLE.....repealing it gave the UNSTABLE who can't even live on their own, the right to own a gun. That is NOT Pro-LIFE.

My friend works with those type of people. One has bursts of violence and uses his fists to punch holes in walls, I'm glad for her sake that he can't (or COULDN'T ) own a gun. Now he can...putting HER LIFE in danger.


You gave your father as ONE example of someone who has never been violent so you feel all the mentally unstable should have guns for protection. I am at least as old as your father and NEVER used or needed a gun for protection.

Using YOUR "logic" then no one ever should need a gun for protections since ONE person(me) didn't need it.


Pick nits all you want but anyone with mental PROBLEMS shouldn't own a gun.

 

That would be completely incorrect. A human being is a person and a fetus is a human being, undeniably. All the abortion promoters' efforts to convince everyone that the obvious just isn't true is humorous.

 

Was it too long to read?

 

So you agree that non-violent people should have second amendment rights?

 

Call it whatever you like; just stop pretending to value their lives. We already know you don't.

 

Well, you disagree with legal terminology then. I'm sure you're qualified to make such corrections.

 

So you agree mentally unstable people shouldn't have guns? Or is that a good idea to you?

Depends on what you mean by second amendment rights.....I do not believe you need a gun that shoots 60 bullets a second or a rocket launcher for hunting or defense.

I own guns and no one has ever tried to take them away.

 

Just a polite discussion, Fox. Like the abortion issue, government interference in our individual freedoms needs to be kept in check. Anyone with a pressure cooker can launch 600 projectiles in a fraction of a second and no law will prevent it. I am glad to hear you are a gun owner. You are likely in a state where people are free to carry. Unfortunately, I live in ultra-Liberal Los Angeles and they are taking guns away from law abiding citizens and only criminals and gang members carry them. (Politicians are exempt!)

 

What is humorous is your continued use of fallacy. One of the central questions of the abortion debate is whether or not a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human.

You starting out a debate on whether or not a zygote is a human with - "its a human because its a human" is nothing but repeating your premise - assumed premise.

Repeating your premise is not an argument for much.

What is also humorous is the fact that this fallacy has been pointed out to you numerous times and yet you still persist in pretending that repeating a premise constitutes an argument.

Lame - O - Rama

 

It's been demonstrated time and again, in this forum and this very thread, why the organisms that we are cannot be considered anything other than human beings from the time of conception onward. If you don't believe in science then that's on you. Just repeating "it's a fallacy" jover and over doesn't make it so.

 

A zygote and a foetus MAY become human but they are not necessarily so. So many fertlised eggs, so many zygotes spontaneously miscarry in the first trimester that all they may be is dead.

 

A human fetus is only a POTENTIAL human being. That is not a fallacy but a FACT and no amount of science denial is going to alter that fact.