I Am Pro-Abortion

[I drank what?]

...

 

[quip]

pop quiz:

What is the actual percentage of abortions done to save the mother's life?

just curious

:dunce:

No where near the same percentage of pro-lifers who would be fine with murdering the baby to save mom's life.

 

[Rusha]

If the timeline is appropriate and it is a possibility to deliver the unborn baby early to save them, then this should be used, too! I agree.

Considering the advancements in modern medicine, better to attempt to save them all instead of intentionally killing them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/worlds-tiniest-babies-how-are-they-now/

 

[Rusha]

pop quiz:

What is the actual percentage of abortions done to save the mother's life?

just curious

:dunce:

Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[quip]

so then more or less than 1%?

about 100X more.

What say you? Any debate regarding abortion to save the mother's life?

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[Rusha]

so if i was going to troll people should i bring that up as an important point to consider...?

have them bicker endlessly about that??

since there is no good call in that situation

:troll: :dunce:

I think you should. Also, never agree to use their terminology. Example ... there is no such thing as pro-choice. They are pro-abortion.

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[Quetzal]

Considering the advancements in modern medicine, better to attempt to save them all instead of intentionally killing them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/worlds-tiniest-babies-how-are-they-now/

I agree.

 

[Quetzal]

uh, yeah stripe, afraid the troll has cornered you into the hole you dug yourself into

let me help you out

yes there is ~1% chance that an abortion could theoretically save the mother's life, we let doctors decide that (no moral dilemma there)

but you should not keep feeding the troll simply because you dun goofed and said it NEVER happens.., just get over it and move on

I think my question is a fair one. When someone makes an affirmative statement, like Stripe did, I expect that person to support said statement with adequate knowledge or experience.

 

[Stripe]

Are you sure this is the case?

Perhaps you can present a case where it is necessary to stop delivering the baby to kill him.

No baby.

At conception, the baby is alive. Abortion kills a baby; it ends his life.

You apparently arbitrarily bestow a single human cell with an equal value to an adult woman? :idunno:

Nope. It is not arbitrary to call a living human being a person. It is arbitrary to call a living human being a non-person based on a physical trait — as you do — like size, location, detectable heartbeat, skin color, nationality or religion.

Your accusations are projection; you endorse murder, which makes you as bad as a murderer.

Sorry Stripe but you really don't get to shrug away your supposed ongoing human tragedy that easily, what a crock.

The shrugging you imagined of the tragedy you admit to ignoring, while endorsing the murder of babies even you would concede are people? That tragedy?

So now you try to dump your own callous and heartless nature onto me with a hastily contrived guilt trip scenario?

Nope. You freely admit that you endorse murder, even of babies you concede are people.

However I wasn't talking about a confirmed pregnancy or a later term miscarriage this is still shortly after conception when nobody knows, before the embryo either embeds or more likely fails to. Which for you apparently still involves a "tiny human being" rather than a few cells representing a possible potential human being before it has developed.

So you expect me to take responsibility for that of which I have no knowledge? Who is creating the guilt trip again?

It seems reasonable to me that a person is rather more than just a few albeit human cells.

And it seems reasonable to me that a human being is a person no matter how small. And my position is justifiable, given that I do not run the risk of endorsing murder, while you happily concede that you do condone murder, even for babies that you concede are people.

It's about the right for a woman to choose what will happen to her own body, and when she has babies, not my rights nor yours.

You failed biology, right? A baby has his own body. A mother has her own body.

I do? How did you arrive at that conclusion, are you a mind reader?

Nope. Just a plain old words reader. It's telling that you would accuse me of mind reading, however, given that you did exactly that to accuse me of not caring about babies dying when I would have had no knowledge they even existed.

Yes, there are usually time limits, after which a more justifiable argument will be required, say a medical problem.

And these are the words.

You endorse the murder of babies even after you concede that they are people.

I think it's rather good that these days women no longer have to die because of a pregnancy problem, although one woman did die during pregnancy recently in Ireland where all abortions are banned. If she had lived in England she would be alive today, but you perhaps find it tragic too, but a price worth paying? lain:

The woman, Savita Halappanave, had blood poisoning. The hospital might have been negligent in not delivering the baby soon after the condition came to light — which is what routinely happens in Ireland — but there would never be a need to stop halfway through the delivery of a child to sever his spinal cord.

Your appeal that murder should be allowed because of medical risks is nonsensical. It also ignores the fact that abortion procedures are a grave risk to mothers.

Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.

No abortion is ever done to save the life of a mother. There is never a need to stop delivering the baby to sever the child's spinal cord.

 

[Rusha]

why do you hate women's rights?!!?!?!??!

As a woman, I most certainly do not. I don't believe any woman or man should have the legal right to kill their children.

As a mother of three, I find it horrifying that other women would do this to their own children. Desperation and/or selfishness is no excuse.

 

[OCTOBER23]

MURDERING GOD'S BABIES WILL BRING A CURSE ON AMERICA

You better Watch out what or who you agree with.

 

[Quetzal]

No abortion is ever done to save the life of a mother. There is never a need to stop delivering the baby to sever the child's spinal cord.

These statistics do not support your claim.

 

[Rusha]

No abortion is ever done to save the life of a mother. There is never a need to stop delivering the baby to sever the child's spinal cord.

Feel free to argue with the poster who asked that specific question and site with the statistic.

 

[Stripe]

These statistics do not support your claim.

Those statistics equivocate. Abortion is the termination of a baby's life. It is never necessary to terminate the baby to save the mother. The baby can be delivered without stopping to put a pair of scissors through his spinal cord and the risk to the mother's life will be exactly the same.

There is never a need to stop delivering the baby to kill him.

 

[Quetzal]

Those statistics equivocate. Abortion is the termination of a baby's life. It is never necessary to terminate the baby to save the mother. The baby can be delivered without stopping to put a pair of scissors through his spinal cord and the risk to the mother's life will be exactly the same.

There is never a need to stop delivering the baby to kill him.

Can you provide evidence to support that?