It's obvious Abortion is wrong

The anti-abortion crowd is moving in a new direction. It is obvious that abortion will not be outlawed in the U.S. They are trying to regulate it out of existence, evidenced by the latest batch of more stringent requirements for clinics, required counceling and sonograms and lately death certificates and burial/cremation of miscarried and aborted fetuses.

 

And those laws are being struck down one by one.

 

And it's also a human being. Biology 101.

- - - Updated - - -

I like to take a moment to post this video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cuJJowJikdk

 

Only 30% want to ban abortion. Many are "pro life" without wanting to force others to live as they do.

 

The above chart is what I'm referring to. As you can both have their rises and falls but the pro death crowd is on a steady decline and the pro life crowd is on a steady climb. Simple chart reading. The pro abortion crowd has never gained the same amount from 1995 and the pro life crowd has never seen a slump as low as 1995. The pro abortion crowd has sunk to 50% and only recently did it gained that same amount.

Prove it.

- - - Updated - - -

Source?

 

Why do you call us anti abortion instead of pro life? Would be fair to call you guys anti life? After all no matter how you look at it you are advocating for the death of human beings.

 

Yeah, we need to pay for transplants for folks with genetic defects so they can live long enough to breed and pass the gift along. Same for folks whose liver was destroyed by a disease they got by using illegal drugs.

 

No, you don't give up your day job. I read the charts just fine.

Then complain to the poster and HuffPo for using it to try to debunk my statement.

So you're not denying what I said, just the source of the poll. Again, I wasn't the one who posted it. Why are you attacking me for it?

No, the pro abortion poster did.

 

Nothing like forcing women to obtain a death certificates and pay for a burial services for an extra heavy period flow to get all those women to join the theists who want to deny women their Constitutional rights!

- - - Updated - - -

Technically the anti-abortionists are anti-Constitutional Rights.

Would you prefer that definition?

 

As someone who opposes women having Constitutional Rights and who cannot read a chart it seems that you are relying on dubious sources for your invidious position.

 

No. Now you're being obtuse.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/...quenced-is-it-cause-for-celebration-or-alarm/

 

Your reading comprehension skills need work. There's nothing there about 'pro death'. Pro choice was 48% in 2013, 50% in 2015 which is an increase of 2%. 'Pro life' was 45% in 2013, 44% in 2015 which is a decrease of 1%. You stand corrected.

 

Again... "it will become one" does not work. (1) If it will "become" one eventually you are confirming it is NOT one today. (2) The tree will also become a disorganized pile of carbon atoms but we don't call it that while it is ACTUALLY a tree.

If the zef will potentially become a person, then it is not currently a person so we do not call it a person. The same logic applies to its death. It will certainly die at some point, but we do not call it dead until it is ACTUALLY dead.

I understand it is really hard to define person-hood in a way that does not require an active mind. I am not aware of any such definition. To suit your purpose (to fit the box you are trying to protect) you need to provide a definition of person-hood that fits the zygote, embryo, and fetus (without including organic material that is obviously NOT a person). Do you have such a definition?

 

Pro abortionists are pro death and you aren't looking at the whole chart. From the chart that could very well change in a few years.

- - - Updated - - -

If you take your blinders off you'll see I'm right.

 

Now you're changing the subject. I'm addressing how the chart is read. Again, someone decided to challenge me with that poll and I accepted. Please show how the pro abortion crowd is higher than 1995.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove that we are against the constitution.

 

Ironic given that your own sources stated that this was 18 weeks AFTER fertilization/conception.

 

Prove it. Prove that I'm against the constitution, prove that I'm reading the chart wrong, and prove that I was the one who posted that chart in the first place.

 

You are opposed to women having reproductive rights protected by the 14th Amendment ergo you are opposed to constitutional rights under the Law of the Land.

http://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/what-are-reproductive-rights-.html

 

There is no "Pro-Abortion" crowd.

And you are against the Constitution because you want to deny women their rights.

 

Pro-CHOICE is advocating for women's right to CHOICE.


Pro-CHOICE does not advocate for abortion.

Look "choice" up in a dictionary and you'll see that it doesn't mean pro-abortion or pro-death or any other stupid name the Anti-Choicers (who are against women's LIFE) give it...

 

so the right supports republican death panels?

 

Then you are a pro illegal abortionist.

I don't need to look at the whole chart. The last couple years show that support for choice is rising.

 

No, its not hard at all, you just cannot comprehend it. For example, I clearly separated the stages of the oak into acorn and tree - the acorn and the tree are simply stages of the oak - yet you completely missed that major aspect. The fertilized human egg, the baby, the child, the adult, are all human persons just in different stages.

Its not a difficult concept, just for you.

 

If it is so easy, why not explain your definition? You define a human in the same terms you would define a tree or any other living thing... but a tree is NOT a person is it? A human body without a brain cannot be a person. That is why the hospital was not charged with murder when they removed Terri Schaivo's feeding tubes. Maybe the problem is that you are trying to force this into a box that defines a human body, or a living human organism. You have not yet defined a person.

Again you fail to justify your claim that you can call the zygote what it may potentially BECOME. Would it be correct to call it dead because it will eventually become dead? If not, then it would be incorrect to call it a person before it is actually a person.

 

The 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion. If anything it goes in my favor as no one can be denied life liberty or property without due process of law. I don't see court cases to deny each unborn the right to live.