Pregnancies from rape
- Thread starter Toots_mcgee
- Start date
This idiotic reply is why I stop trying to post information. This libtard won't answer the question because answering it one way or another will show he just want to make baby killing at any age legal.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
Exactly what argument did you make that he couldn't refute?
No, we won't agree only to rape victims.
Non-viable pregnancies, Health of the mother.
Will you agree to pay for the medical care, of the mother if she must keep it?
Will you agree to pay for the child's care (health, food, clothing) until the child turns 18?
Petey what happened to your sense of humor??
Personally, I believe abortion is morally wrong. I question my right to force my morals on someone else. I refuse to be lectured from someone who has no adopted children or foster children.
Personally, I believe abortion is morally wrong. I question my right to force my morals on someone else. I refuse to be lectured from someone who has no adopted children or foster children.
It's almost like there should be an amendment in the Constitution about forcing one's morals on someone else. If it were up to me, I'd make it first. The "first amendment," kind of has a ring to it.
American Christians really have a quandry:
Do they support Israel ? We send them our tax dollars and they are a 'pro-abortion' country.
In fact, they have a single payer health system so that means Christians are literally paying for abortions.
They have no quandary. They are absolutely and utterly immune to irony.
After he made posts and comments about the Supreme Court changing the law to not protect abortion federally, I asked him why there are strong laws against harming eagle eggs. He said that if I was going to only post about one thing he was going to block me.
Why won't you agree to stop abortion on demand? What would non-viable pregnancies include?
I'd agree to making the perpetrator of rape pay for anything and everything the child needs or wants.
As far as other pregnancies, no. I'm responsible for any child I helped conceive as everyone should be.
Would you allow a mother of 3 that is pregnant with another to end the life of one of her older 3 children? If not, what's the difference?
Abortion used as birth control or convience, what the majority of abortions are, is absolutely wrong.
If the mother can't raise it or doesn't want the baby, there is well over a million and estimates say close to two million couples currently waiting to adopt a baby. It's very easy to do and the cost are almost always covered.
I have a great sense of humor. What makes you think I don't?
Do you belive there should be laws against premeditated killing or thievery? If so, are you not "forcing" your morals on others? There is absolutely no difference with the killing of an unborn child. With today's technology there is no viable doctor that can refute the unborn is alive with every characteristic of a child that has been born. And left alone it will be a protected member of society.
If posting here is "lecturing" then we all need to stop because I definitely refuse to be lecture by most posters on the political board.
And for your info, I have offered multiple time to adopt many children of different ages and races. All went to other family members. I have also allowed many to live with me for different periods of time for various reasons.
Being morally opposed to abortion, I cannot defend it. I doubt if we can ever get the majority of Americans to support a ban.
I certainly will not base my vote on a candidate's view on abortion.
I am not convinced a zygote is a person. Is the "day after pill" a form of abortion?
I certainly will not base my vote on a candidate's view on abortion.
I am not convinced a zygote is a person. Is the "day after pill" a form of abortion?
So, in your opinion, when is it a child?
The following is common among most in the medical field:
The child has its own DNA right from conception.
At 18–22 days it as a heartbeat.
Brain waves are present at six weeks.
At eight weeks, the baby responds to outside touch.
It can smell and produce tears at 28 weeks.
By the 34th week babies sleep and wakes in a regular pattern with their eyes opening and closing.
The vast majority of newborns born above 24 weeks gestational age survive.
By 35th week over 90% of babies born survive.
Again, when is it a life? It funny to me that we're looking on Mars for marks of water for the possibility of life while we're killing actual life in development in a mother's womb. Throughout history, nations with horrible religious beliefs have sacrificed their babies for prosperity and comfort and we've called them barbaric. How is it any different today? Most abortions today are not done for the health of the mother. They are done as a form of birth control or convenience. There's nothing more barbaric to me.
Why does it matter to me? The same reason I would oppose any nation or group that would begin to euthanize any group of humans because of age, race, religion or gender.
I do not disagree in principle with a lot of what the anti-abortionists say. However, we should not pretend that there isn't a precedent for state-allowed homicide in other situations. It's interesting to me that the people who are against one form of it are for the other form of it, and this goes both ways. It is a weird (but actually pretty normal) kind of doublethink to talk about the sanctity of human life as an absolute while not absolutely believing in it. And again, I am not talking about just one side here.
I don't know exactly when human life begins. One could argue at conception. Or one could argue that it's when the zygote becomes an embryo in the third to fourth week. IMO After that, it is hard to not believe that an embryo is most definitely a human life. Petey, you didn't answer if the day after pill is an abortion??????
I'm honestly not sure. Until medical science shows different, I'd trade the ending of all other abortions for the day after pill. I'm not sure on rape victims because there are so many valuable people in this world that are a product of rape. My way of thinking is, can we kill them now, after they're born? If not, we should be able to kill them in the womb. I do understand there are anomalies that must be taken case by case. It's just hard for me to allow the killing of what would be a human being at any stage, -8 months to 100 years old.
Last edited:
Leave it to Toots to quote a pathetic pig. McCaskill also voted for the most extreme late term abortion, against most of her constituency. She's pathetic and so is Toots.
I have no problem with people being against abortion as long as they have a consistent position. If your position isn't consistent, then it's just arbitrary. And if it's arbitrary, then it's not a position; it's a fart in the wind to be taken just as seriously.
Leaving out the over-the-top commentary by her. Are the facts wrong in her comments?
Similar threads
