Shapiro Gets Into Tense Back-and-Forth With Pro-Choice Student

What's that supposed to mean?

No abortions=cleaner air. ?

No abortions= no wars. ?

No abortions=peace in the Middle -East?

No abortions= staying healthy until you die.?

No abortions= No poverty ?

No abortions= no men rape women?

No abortions= no hackers breaking into systems and robbing your identity and creating havoc with banks ?

No abortions= High tech will only help, not hurt

Really!?!?!!!!!

 

No where does it say that it's a person at conception.



And I for one have never said it isn't "life"...it's alive, it's life...it isn't a person.....

 

Whose are you?

- - - Updated - - -

Read really slowly my quote you posted.








I bet your lips are moving.

 

The Eugenics arguments you espouse were dis-proven long ago.

 

Exactly-lefties tell is how much they despise govt control over their bodies while supporting programs that force govt control over their bodies.

Seems hypocritical, no?

 

I never understood the mentality of those who think a single human cell is a baby ?

The one pretending is you. Pretending you have some kind of valid argument that proves a single human cell is a baby.

 

I'm not a fetus. I can understand you not being able to answer the question, you can't answer this simple one either:

"If abortion is "murder" as you say...and you support the death penalty for murderers....would you execute a woman who self-induced an abortion at 5 weeks? Yes or No? and if No...why not?"



I guess that big word "IF" stumps more than a few people

 

Righties want smaller government except where women's reproductive tracts and personal lives are involved . Then they want BIG government to take over, force women to have more babies, many of whom are poor so more taxes can go to supporting more children...Then they want to shut down clinics where women can get accessible, affordable BIRTH CONTROL....

Seems stupid, no?

 

Oh wow. An abortion debate.

How scintillating.

 

What you cannot seem to understand, is that I answered the question... in the quote you posted. I can explain it to you, but I cannot make you understand.

 

Back up-we are talking about govt control of our bodies. Subsidies for birth control is another issue.

So-isn't it hypocritical to state you don't want the govt telling you what to do with your body-while supporting Obamacare and universal health care?

Can you answer that directly?

 

And what about "We want Government off your back....and into HER uterus" "conservatives"?

No hypocrisy there???

- - - Updated - - -

Fun to debate....but everybody knows it's meaningless.

The "pro-lifers" have FAILED for 43 years to overturn Roe...they'll fail for 43 more...and beyond.

"Oveturning Roe" is just a phony promise Republicans make to the gullible every election cycle.

 

As above. Did you see my post?

 

Removal of the fetus is always proper if the mother no longer wishes it in her body.

 

There's a big difference between the government forcing women to give birth and making health care mandatory....or wearing a seat belt or paying taxes or not robbing banks.

The government isn't trying to tell you what legal surgery you may or may not have...Anti-Choicers want to tell women what legal medical procedures they can or can't have....that is invading privacy....mandatory health care isn't.


But it is fun to see people whine about it...

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, it's pretty silly to be debating it in the 21st century...but some people aren't past the 19th century yet

 

Make up your mind, do you want the govt controlling your body or not?

 

Controlling it is fine if it fits the Progressive agenda...

You cant expect consistency from these people.

 

There is no pretending but are you suggesting we limit killing babies to just the single cell ones? How many cells before abortion should be prohibited or does it even matter to you and you are just blowing smoke. But of course you realize that we are talking humans with differentiated specialized cells, I don't believe there are a lot of single cell baby abortions or even those with hundreds of cells in fact by the time the mother even knows she is pregnant the baby is made up of hundreds of thousands of those specialized cells so your argument is specious.

 

You say carrying a fetus is not slavery but then also say being forced to remain pregnant is slavery. Which is it?
I really doubt a fetus has MORE rights than the mother (unless you consider you give the mother the right to end a human being's life...hardly a "right" we extend to any other citizen in the nation).

So human beings that have no one to stand up for their own existence (and that could cover a whole spectrum of ignored, marginalized and
maligned people) have no right to life? Got it. That's a real "humane" standard you espouse.

Your opinion that the unborn have no rights is hardly a fact. It is, in fact, your opinion.

And you haven't demonstrated you have the slightest clue as to what "slavery" really is.


.
.

Yet you fail to see abortion is murder...interesting.

Show me where I claimed otherwise. I'm amazed you blatantly assign statements to me I've never made.
I even spoke about abortion before cells are able to coalesce into a viable human being. I guess you only read what you want to read and ignore the rest. That's very "liberal" of you.

I'd say that Canadians are more
humane than Americans then.

Again you claim to have a monopoly on facts without any evidence of that claim at all. Your so called arguments consist of nothing more than specious claims
and inconsistent ethics.

 

ROFL note the couched statement.

How about "the killing of a baby is always proper if the mother doesn't want it in her body"

 

So you are not for government control if it involves killing a baby but all for it if means I can't buy a 64oz. Coke? And WHO isn't past the 17th century let alone the 19th.

 

ROFL notice again how you attempt to move the goal post and divert.

This is about when a human life begins, but that being said a person is a human being a baby in the womb is a human being from the getgo.

Oxford Dictionary

Person

1.
a human being regarded as an individual:

Medical dictionary

per·son (pûr′sən)
n.
1. A living human.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person

You don't get to change the meanings of words to make your position more palatable.

 

Did I say that?

 

I answered here:

There's a big difference between the government forcing women to give birth and making health care mandatory....or wearing a seat belt or paying taxes or not robbing banks.

The government isn't trying to tell you what legal surgery you may or may not have...Anti-Choicers want to tell women what legal medical procedures they can or can't have....that is invading privacy....mandatory health care isn't.


But it is fun to see people whine about it...

- - - Updated - - -



Ya, it's pretty silly to be debating it in the 21st century...but some people aren't past the 19th century yet

 

I'm testing the principle you are espousing, try again.