Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

You don't even know if fetuses were from abortion procedures. What you're saying is that the veracity of your claim is entirely unimportant.

 

Lets do some simple math. Assuming 36:1 for families to adoption that mean 36*120k = 4.3 million families want kids. That is more than the total number of kids born in the us, 4mil. That number makes no sense.

 

You're the one who brought in the breathing requirement; I just changed it to a newborn, meaning full-term, healthy baby delivery. I didn't realize that I was playing with someone who wants to win at all costs:

 

You're the one who admitted to changing the game (we were discussing abortions, no? Are newborns aborted?) to give you an advantage and I'm the one who wants to win at all costs? LOL! You're a real piece of work! That's the funniest thing I've read in a month or more. LOL again! I'm dying over here at the continued blindness at your own hypocrisy. It's awesome.

 

If you had read carefully, I readily admitted that I am for a law that would control a woman's choice in the matter of a normal, unexpected, healthy pregnancy for the sake of the child.

It's not first and foremost about what's better for the woman's body. That is not even a consideration until medical people determine that a pregnancy poses a health hazard to her life. Then she really has a hard choice to make.

On the other hand, many of those in favor of abortion choice strain to define the humanity of the child out of existence... so they don't have to admit the same kind of interference.

Mine is temporary interference; their's is permanent, meaning death.

Do you encourage pregnant women to drink, smoke or do meth? Would you discourage that?

This is more about saving baby's lives than turning a blind eye towards their demise.

 

They are families who cannot have kids on their own, often aged from 25 to 45 or beyond. I've known people who were trying to adopt or are still trying to adopt for decades.

 

POST 609

You set up "viable and capable of living outside the womb" as a standard for abortion ineligibility. I simply proved that your definition was not adequate because newborns, toddler, kids and teens even are not "viable and capable of living outside the womb" without dependency on others-- much as a fetus is dependent on her mother's goodwill.

 

NO, I'm saying they are representative. Every one of them may be. They are sadly just meant to get the idea across. They babies don't just go to sleep and drift off to die.... it's a violent end.

 

So you didn't change it to "win at all costs"? Love it. And I did not set up that as a standard for abortion or not, just the difference between the twin studies and abortions. The twins were alive and born and children, not fetuses. You changed the terms again, as is your typical MO, to win at all costs. Alive and kicking and viable (capable of surviving or living successfully, especially under particular environmental conditions; which includes breathing without assistance). You play with words to fit your argument. Others have called you out for the same. And I'm the one that wants to win at all costs? Hahahahahaha!

 

All that is in your mind. There was but one scant mention of the twin studies. I don't think you even replied to it; we certainly had no back and forth about it and NOW you bring it up as if you were referring to it all along? That's rich.

HINT: you can't refer to something that only exists in your mind. No one will know what the hell you are talking about.

POST 592-- the entirety of your response to my crack about the Mengele Grant

 

Keep reading! It gets better with a longer attention span!

Refer to Post 607. You asked why it (the twin studies - we discussed it via your dismissal of Godwin's Law for a few other posts) was a false equivalency, putting lovely words like sub-human out there. I replied to that in post 609. The trail is still warm, how can you not follow it? From there, of course you did your typical Giddy Gallup of word changing and here we are!

 

The trail is still warm because you've crapped your pants. That is all. I was only comparing the ethics of the two. You morphed it into something else without telling anyone and want to blame ME for changing things?!

 

So nothing of substance to refute what I said? And a elementary school taunt? I accept your admission of defeat.

 

I refuted it absolutely. My comment was about the ethics of both matters, one major strategy of which is to consider the two targeted groups (twins and fetuses) as sub-human. That is all I said about it. You'll find plenty of that kind of language in this thread which objectifies fetuses like that. I think you even said in your own words that you have no problem with the "morality" of it.

 

Bless your heart giddy. I think you might have Alzheimer's.

You in post 591:

Me in post 592:

You in post 594:

Me in post 600:

You in post 607:

Me in post 609:

You in post 611:

Me in post 613:

You in post 616:

Me in post 618:

You in post 623, I think this is where you got confused? Who knows. I know so many people are telling you that you're wrong that it's tough to keep up, but this is a very straight-forward discussion.:

Me in post 624:

You in post 627, even more confused:

Me in post 629:

You in post 630:

There, I referred to it. Helpful? Even a toddler could follow that back and forth exchange. Why can't you? Maybe there are some fetal cell studies that can help you? You changed things to suit your purposes, as is your wont, to win an argument, perhaps even at all costs? I love it.

(And I can't believe you made a pants ****ting comment. I'm still cracking up about that!)

 

It's like going in circles with you.

Once again, NO ONE is pro-abortion, or as you attempted to mask, "in favor of abortion." No one. It's not an event to celebrate or glamorize. Why do you continue to manipulate language to fit your opinions? Call it what it is: pro-choice. Simply put, there are roughly 50 percent (probably more, now) of us who value choice, especially as it pertains to the women who SHOULD have the right to make the best decision for themselves. This whole "interference" concept that you brought up shows your fear of a lack of control over women. Women don't NEED interference from you, or any other man, to make choices related to giving birth, or not.

You can use all of the emotion-laced wording you desire (turn a blind eye, demise), but it does nothing for your argument. It's just a hyper-sensitive reaction. The same goes for the ridiculous meth and alcohol parallel. Is that really part of your argument, or is it just a technique that you use to tip-toe around things? No one wants pregnant women to do meth. No reasonable person is "pro-abortion." Period.

The fact that you believe in a "control" over a woman's choice says a lot about your overall value of women. As a man, what gives you the feeling that YOU, or any other man, ought to have ANY control over a woman's choice? Who are you, or any other man, to a woman, when it comes down to her right to simply choose? That's narcissism at its finest. Neither one of us holds greater weight or reasoning than a woman who chooses to give birth or not. I don't understand, in the slightest, where you came up with this personal philosophy.

Moreover, the fact that you don't believe a woman can make her own decision, whether you agree or not, is suggestive of your profoundly negative views towards women's thinking. Are women incapable of making the best decisions for themselves? If your decision-making were questioned as a man, I'm almost certain that you would lose it and go on the defensive. It's almost shocking that another man has to defend that rationale mind of women to you. Again, where do you get this belief structure that your ideas are better for a body, for an entire population, that you cannot possibly identify with? I don't think you see it, but you really are questioning women as a whole, even if children are taken out of the picture altogether.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you came up with all of these complicated ideas about choice, with respect to being so passionate about the right to choose, when you've identified yourself as a male. It comes across as a control issue more than anything. You wrote that it's for the well-being of a child, but it reads as the control of power.

 

Ok so you agree with all my other points. Great.

 

Giddyup... Just give it up, you look foolish.

 

The only foolish people here are the ones with blood on their hands, supporting such atrocity.

 

Hey! While you're here, do you mind finally answering these questions? Doing so in a straightforward manner would be swell!