Abortionists, why have kids just to sacrifice them?

And they also call it a bun in the oven, therefore proving a fetus is really a pastry.

We're not talking colloquialisms and predictive descriptions. We're talking longstanding legal and social definitions. Fetuses are not considered people until they are born.

 

So if someone calls it baby enough ... that makes it a baby?

​

 

85yrs old human is sentient, embryo is not.

Because how can you get to being embryo if you were never a sperm and egg?
Protect sperms and eggs!

 

REally? Interesting. So you think there is a technically correct defnition of the word "baby"?

You guys are hilarious.

 

Better hilarious than laughable. This from the poster who misrepresents definitions as a debating tactic. Go and look up "colloquial"

 

Sentient Schmintient!

It's a BEING. do you not understand that?

It's not a wart. not even close. it'snot a blister. all those things are not sentient.

an embryo, however, is a BEING.

You abortionists are misguided. if you wanna have your bloodlust for killing something, how about go around America and round up all these ferel hogs and cats and kill those. they breed uninhibited. but maybe that's not the concern. innocent human blood is. yeah, this abortion racket is much deeper than what the debate is about that's for sure. .

 

So posting actual dictionary links and quotes is "misrepresenting" .

You are LAUGHABLE!

Look up and post a link to the definitive definition of baby.

 

So posting actual dictionary links and quotes is "misrepresenting" .

You are LAUGHABLE!

Look up and post a link to the definitive definition of baby.

 

So posting actual dictionary links and quotes is "misrepresenting" .

You are LAUGHABLE!

Look up and post a link to the definitive definition of baby.

 

Is it? By what standards? Existence alone does not a being make.

 

A cane toad could be called a "being" as well - so what does make the difference between feral and wanted - well it is something existing where it is not desired to be - so no difference then

 

Why should I care about unsentient life?

I would say killing feral dogs and cats would be more immoral than killing embryos. They are sentient to some level, after all, and can feel and suffer. Embryos are not.

 

How do you account for abstinence "education" that only requires that we do "nothing", without also ensuring better infrastructure to support more modern and more cost effective forms of preventing the need for the abortion of a fellow human being?

 

Nobody puts Baby in a corner.

I'm still shocked at the callous bloodthirsty hatred that our pro-life friends display towards helpless haploid humans (tm). An unfertilized egg is individual, alive, human, and it can develop into a full grown human. It is indisputably a being, a human life (at least by pro-life standards). Yet look at them here, dehumanizing that haploid life for their own selfish reasons. Pro-life hands are dripping with the blood of millions of slaughtered haploid baybees.

 

That is because you are ignorant of the facts. The fact is that we favor the defenseless weaker of the human beings in the equation over the stringer who created the situation she is in by her own willing actions in the firest place.

 

Translation: We favor the zef because it's a tool we can use to punish women who choose to have sex. Of course if the woman was forced to have sex, i.e. she didn't enjoy the sex, the zef is expendable.

 

Exactly so Grannie.

 

Amen, Amen, Amen.

 

Do you know the damage abortions cause to the woman's body? her mentality? she's in utero, her hormones are at work heavily, an abortion throws the hormones into inbalance. she could die on the table. she's already punishing herself with no help from the pro-lifers. You make no sense whatsoever.

All this "non-sentient" talk is madness. yall need mental evaluations pronto.

 

Far less than pregnancy. It's not even close.

Pure kooky goodness there.

Just as you could die during a root canal.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't be here dedicating your life to punishing women. Since you are here, I know you don't believe it.

So, any other fantasies you'd like to share? After all, I specialize in goading the crazy people to put their crazy on open display.

 

That weak nonsense has been debunked here many dozen times. We want women not to kill human beings wantonly and with premeditation. It is that simple.

 

You are so right Horsemen, they ae heartless vicious killers.

 

It would add so much more to any confidence in your sincerity, if you would provide the infrastructure that could render a need for the medical procedure of abortion, unnecessary in modern times.

 

There is as much (or little) cruelty or planning in any abortion, regardless of how the woman got pregnant. And more so in any state execution. Your argument does not allow you to differentiate between abortions in the case of incest, rape, or otherwise and it applies equally to a stance on the death penalty. A problem with simple arguments: the world isn't simple.

 

But you still can not show a single instance of it anywhere. So much for what you say and truth.