Planned Parenthood's former president says she was instructed to say 'abortion' in every interview.

Riiight!

 

I guess you don't realize that other posters read your "illuminating replies"........and see you have nothing

 

Where are WE? Where are YOU?

You would tell someone who had a rough childhood that they would be better off if they were aborted? That would be DISGUSTING!

 

Yeah, you think that it's nothing more than a POLYP until the umbilical cord is cut!

"Child" is not a scientific term.

 

It prevents lives from being killed by imprisoning a killer who would otherwise very likely kill, just like the law against murder.

 

Every time an abortion is performed someone dies. When an abortion is prevented the one who benefits is the innocent one whose life hasn’t been snuffed out.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
And who or what does that benefit?




I didn't miss anything....I asked And who or what does that benefit?

You: "who gets caught and sent to prison, is prevented -- at least for some time -- from performing elective abortion again"""


WHO or what does that benefit?


You: ""is that it will reduce the number of abortions performed, given that performing one would risk prison."""

WHO does it benefit....???

No, there is NO "someone" who gets aborted...

Even if there was WHY TF they should "benefit" over born people who have rights??

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
YES, and isn't that sad and tragic and where are all you Anti-Choicers to adopt these unwanted kids who are suffering NOW.. !!!

Yes, where are the people who want to ban abortion and create more unwanted kids?

That's not me.

No, I wouldn't and where you got the idea that I would is a mystery....

I said: ""I would say and have said the unwanted are better off aborted then brought into the world to suffer their entire lives....you seem to think their suffering is just fine and dandy as long as they weren't aborted."""


DO YOU?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, in the world of science and facts....where people don't have to use emotional appeal to have a point...

A ZEF is not a child.

And , as usual, you cannot show where I ever said that because I didn't.

You seem to be flailing around just for something to post ...

Nope, it's not .....and Anti-Choicers use it incorrectly to denote a ZEF...it's an emotional trigger for them because they hate facts.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I didn't miss anything....I asked And who or what does that benefit?

You: "who gets caught and sent to prison, is prevented -- at least for some time -- from performing elective abortion again"""

WHO or what does that benefit?

You: ""is that it will reduce the number of abortions performed, given that performing one would risk prison."""


WHO does it benefit....???

Why would the unwanted benefit from being brought into the world???



You: "who gets caught and sent to prison, is prevented -- at least for some time -- from performing elective abortion again"""

WHO or what does that benefit?

You: ""is that it will reduce the number of abortions performed, given that performing one would risk prison."""


WHO does it benefit....??? NO ONE. It benefits no living person.


It doesn't make the world a better place nor does it improve people's lives.

 

You think that it's not a child until the umbilical cord is cut!

They are free to use "child" in whatever way they want. You won't be able to find a definition of the word which conflicts with calling a ZEF a "child."

 

This sounds like an argument for killing any unwanted human!

 

I am not the one dodging or suggesting my beliefs be forced on others. You are not wrong, but the level of concern you are projecting in this discussion is far too low to make a positive difference. Wearing a pro-life t-shirt and producing text does nothing for the thousands of children that will never see the inside of a permanent, loving home. Unborn require zero effort on your part.

Since no one has ever been able to come up with a plan to enforce abortion laws, I will stop asking.

Lets say you could magically end abortion with the wave of a wand. What do we do with the additional children? Do you adopt, or just expand "the system"?

 

Yeah, it does doesn't it.

 

You are 100% content with the law in your country as it is right now? BULLCRAP!

What does this have to do with abortion?

Again, you're assuming that there would be a significant spike of unwanted children.

 

So the claim I never made is BS? You are running further from the topic.

There is a difference between having a genuine concern for human life, and trying to appear sanctimonious. Those that care are adopting, fostering, mentoring, and showing up to make a difference. Those seeking the appearance are wearing pro-life t-shirts and wearing out their keyboards entering text in a futile attempt to convince others they care.

I made no such assumption as I had to resort to an extreme example like waving a magic wand. There is no chance abortion laws would result in more births.

Abortion laws cannot be enforced and have no benefit to society. You have not been able to demonstrate otherwise.

 

Good. So then you agree that thinking that a part of the law should be changed is NOT in fact 'forcing your belief on others.'

Totally irrelevant to the abortion debate. You would also disagree with a pro-life person who has adopted a hundred kids. So you're just distracting because I haven't adopted.

Well how would people have elective abortions if they were illegal?

You still haven't said what you mean by ''enforced.''

 

Okay, so you BELIEVE that someone who had a rough childhood would be better off if they were aborted, but you wouldn't say it to their face?

 

Yep! And the other person we have been debating is now OUT of arguments!

 

No. You support laws that use law enforcement and all their firepower to force your beliefs onto others even though you are unable to describe how.

While I would still disagree with pro-life parents of adopted children, I would be having the discussion with someone with genuine concern rather than someone trying to project an image of concern. I don't fault you for not adopting, but it does reveal your position is one of convenience. Its like how liberals claim to care about the environment by putting a "Save the Planet" sticker on their car.

People would still have elective abortions by taking advantage of the thriving medical tourism industry your proposed laws would create. Those lacking resources would take advantage of the thriving black market abortion industry your proposed laws would create. They could also take abortion drugs. (Another thriving industry your proposed laws would create.)

Abortion laws cannot be enforced. Not only do they have zero benefit to society, they cause more harm than good. The only possible outcome would be shielding the true number of abortions from your view. No different than closing your eyes.

 

So do you according to your ridiculous standard. I assume that you support laws that use law enforcement. So why is that not forcing your beliefs onto others?

Do you have this ridiculous standard for any other subject? That people do not have "genuine concern" about something unless they take some sort of action? I doubt it!

Well they are contributing to a problem which exists. What problem that exists am I contributing to?

EVERYONE would be able to do this?

You're assuming that it would create a black market abortion industry.

You STILL haven't said what you mean by ''enforced.''

What harm would it do?

 

Your advocated policies delete someone before they develop the ability to communicate the fact that they are someone.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, there is NO "someone" who gets aborted...

Even if there was WHY TF they should "benefit" over born people who have rights??

They could whistle Dixie and THEY still don't get to decide if they have rights or not...

"communicating they are someone" ( what? By Morse code? A phone call?) doesn't mean they have rights.

A newborn baby can't "communicate it's someone" but it has rights.

WHY do you want a ZEF to have more rights than anyone else?

(Don't worry about answering that question because NO Anti-Choicer has EVER answered it )

 

Babies in the womb are the most vulnerable among us. It’s disgraceful and immoral that we treat them as just a malignant growth.

 

They have the SAME rights. All people have an inviolable right against any modification of their unique DNA code or body prior to birth. That encompasses everything from genetic experiments to abortion. Even if they don't have a voice that would allow them to resist those violations.