180

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

define "pops"

Retired hippie.

I'm with Kallend on this one.

Well, except where he says, "keep your nose out of her reproductive organs". Sometimes that chin rest gets slippery and....

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Tink1717 2]

Ray Comfort has been repeatedly and consistently exposed as a fraud and charlatan. Nothing that comes from him or his "ministry" can be considered as credible. To do so is to undermine your own intelligence.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

It isn't any of my, or your, or coreece's or the government's business what it is while it is in the woman's body. It only becomes your business when it is born. Until that time it is 100% the woman's business, and hers only. Mind your own business and not hers.

Kallend...is it a baby in the womb or not. I know you could cite me the technical terms of development (zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc before it's born and is called an neonate) but that's not what I mean. Be serious Kallend... Do you know when it becomes a human child? Does anyone? Just because the baby is dependent on the mother for survival prior to delivery is no justification for murder...if it is really a baby (which I see as absurd to think otherwise...especially if you've ever looked at an ultrasound). I think your rationalization is one of convenience rather than reality....just like the vast majority of reasons women get abortions.

Question: If you were a physician, would you/could you perform abortions? I'm speaking of elective abortions without life of the mother issues. If so, then I guess that establishes your position on the value of life. If not, why not?

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

It's funny how those that are usually so opposed to government intervention in our lives are so insistent on government being involved in a woman's reproductive organs.

The baby inside her is not one of her reproductive organs. It's a baby. The fact that it relies on her for survival is beside that point. It relies on her or someone else for survival after it's born also. This is not a governmental control issue like whether or not we should even have an EPA. This is a life issue. A human life issue.

[normiss 895]

"Do you know when it becomes a human child? "

When it's born.

[Meso 38]

Sigh.

The answer will differ between people. But a baby is most typically not the same thing as a fetus, even by many pro-lifers terms. By calling it a baby you're just trying to attach some kind of value on it to make it seem more immoral to abort.

Many believe it only becomes a baby when it exits the mother, others argue that it's when the baby can survive outside of womb. Others believe it's on conception.

A human life issue... There won't be many here who agree with late term abortion. You seem to think that a 'life' is sacred from conception, I see no logic in that, when it can't feel pain, has no emotion - doesn't even have a developed brain. It's as much alive as a piece of grass. Best watch where you step next.

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

By calling it a baby you're just trying to attach some kind of value on it to make it seem more immoral to abort.

That is exactly what I am doing! I don't deny that.

[normiss 895]

As a country, as a democracy, we have decided to support abortions with some stipulations.

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

"Do you know when it becomes a human child? "

When it's born.

That reasoning includes late term abortion. So it doesn't become a baby worth saving until it clears the birth canal or when it's delivered by c-section? Really?

[billvon 3,116]

>The baby inside her is not one of her reproductive organs. It's a baby.

So remove it from her reproductive organs. Problem solved.

[normiss 895]

Boom!

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

As a country, as a democracy, we have decided to support abortions with some stipulations.

My wife has had to order and perform procedures which terminated the pregnancey for life of the mother issues. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the majority of reasons which are mostly for reasons of convenience.

[normiss 895]

Yep.
Their body.
Their choice.

I could swear we sorted this out in the 70's.

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

>The baby inside her is not one of her reproductive organs. It's a baby.

So remove it from her reproductive organs. Problem solved.

Prior to 24 weeks, the lungs aren't fully developed, and the baby will most likely die. Removal would kill the baby. The same as if, after delivery, you just leave the baby exposed, unfed, unprotected...it will also die on its own. It relies on the mother for survival in both cases.

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

Yep.
Their body.
Their choice.

I could swear we sorted this out in the 70's.

Every OB/GYN Physician you'll speak to learned in Med School that when dealing with a pregnant patient, there are really two patients you're taking care of. What about the baby and it's choice?

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

Yep.
Their body.
Their choice.

I could swear we sorted this out in the 70's.

Not sorted out. Just legalized murder. Just because something is legal does not make it moral...necessarily.

[normiss 895]

Like the death penalty!!!


We just need to identify the unborn violent felons.

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

Like the death penalty!!!


We just need to identify the unborn violent felons.

Ok. So where are the "unborn violent felons" deserving of being put to death?

[billvon 3,116]

>Prior to 24 weeks, the lungs aren't fully developed, and the baby will
>most likely die. Removal would kill the baby.

Not if it's a baby. If you claim a baby begins right after conception, then yes. (Of course, by those standards, then by far the #1 babykiller on the planet is - the woman's uterus, Or God, if you prefer.)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

My wife has had to order and perform procedures which terminated the pregnancey for life of the mother issues. That's not what I'm talking about.

Terminated the pregnancy? Does that mean that your wife has killed babies?

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

Quote

My wife has had to order and perform procedures which terminated the pregnancey for life of the mother issues. That's not what I'm talking about.

Terminated the pregnancy? Does that mean that your wife has killed babies?

Yes. She has had to make the decision to save one life over the other. Either that, or the mother would have died. Then, there would have been two deaths instead of only one. However, I am only talking about prior to viability. Reasons can include rejection, premature natural delivery without being able to adequately stop it, water breaking prematurely, baby dying for whatever reason in the uterus causing infection, etc. I'm not a Physician but there are indications for such measures...all of which are medical in nature and not of convenience. Added: uncontrolled gestational diabetes, hypertension leading to eclampsia (seizure activity, protein in urine, possible death of mother), etc.

Added also: And each of those rare times haunts her every day...brings her to tears...regardless of when it occurred. Again, it's rare...but it does happen...and the physician has got to make the hard choices sometimes.

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

>Prior to 24 weeks, the lungs aren't fully developed, and the baby will
>most likely die. Removal would kill the baby.

Not if it's a baby. If you claim a baby begins right after conception, then yes. (Of course, by those standards, then by far the #1 babykiller on the planet is - the woman's uterus, Or God, if you prefer.)

Completely beside the point Billvon and you know it.

[billvon 3,116]

>Completely beside the point Billvon and you know it.

The fact that nature aborts millions of human babies a year in the US isn't pertinent when people ask whether it's evil and unnatural?

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

>Prior to 24 weeks, the lungs aren't fully developed, and the baby will
>most likely die. Removal would kill the baby.

Not if it's a baby. If you claim a baby begins right after conception, then yes. (Of course, by those standards, then by far the #1 babykiller on the planet is - the woman's uterus, Or God, if you prefer.)

Completely beside the point Billvon and you know it.

It's simply none of your business. Stop being a busybody.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

>Completely beside the point Billvon and you know it.

The fact that nature aborts millions of human babies a year in the US isn't pertinent when people ask whether it's evil and unnatural?

Depends on your perspective...naturalistic/"NDT" evolutionary worldview or creationist worldview. You should be ok with abortion at any time and for any reason from your perspective. Matter of fact, you should be ok with elliminating your (or the communities) competition at any age...since we're all ultimately just animals (squirrels tryin to get a nut, if you will). You're right...abortions occur naturally...and in great numbers. There is a biblical explanation for that. However, it is interesting that you're appealing to the idea of evil or moral absolutes.

Let me ask you a question that may seem off topic. Would you consider pornography wrong...or evil, Billvon?