Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire BBLM, 18.7 million murdered

Kill her & unborn maliciously and premeditated?
Kill her & unborn maliciously but not premeditated?
Kill her & unborn because as a driver on illicit drugs & alcohol you pass out and run over her?
Kill her & unborn because as a driver you had a heart attack at the wheel and unintentionally run over her?
Kill her & unborn in justifiable self-defence because she was a violent ice-addict who directly and intentionally
presented as an imminent threat to your life?

Not all those acts of 'killing' a pregnant woman are necessarily deemed as criminal or heinous,( or as) heinous
as another in the eyes of the law.

The point is: the unborn are considered "human" for matters of crimes against others. Abortionists here are trying to say that the unborn child is not human, and claiming that American jurisprudence backs that assertion. It does not.

Bullshit.
You just want to force your standards on everyone else, when it's really none of your business.

You'd make a good ISIS recruit.
They like forcing their beliefs on others just like you.
They just aren't as hypocritical about it as you.

And don't waste your time on a reply because I only see your drivel when someone quotes it, since I've heard all the same bullshit from you already.

Ok, well are there any of those 38 states you tell of, that have the Unborn Victims Violence Act,
but that also allow legal abortion?





correction: sections of virtually every culture and religion in the world are against abortion.
You could also say virtually every diiferent nation, culture or religion, each has a section of its people either pro , neutral ,or against guns.
there are Christians (but not just Christians) ,who are either pro, neutral or oppose on gun ownership or abortion, correct?

No you haven't gotten anything right.

You know that's an irrational argument to begin with since it advocates doing something illegal.

You won't get it right until you realize you only get to control what you do, not what anyone else does.

You've run from the argument every time, because you cannot refute biology, logical, philosophy, or morality.

Run away again; it's the only play you have.

Reverting to legalism? Great; that could be used just as easily to justify and excuse slavery, or the Holocaust, as both of those were legal at the time. Female genital mutilation, the stoning of homosexuals and of women even accused of adultery, or just walking without a male relative as a chaperone, are also legal in parts of the world. Your reliance on legalism to excuse any action justifies those.

As to the "controlling only what one does, and not that of another" is exactly the point - the child is a human and ought to have the same rights as any other. You, and those like you, take those rights away from the child based upon mere convenience. Slavery has nothing on that.

Nope, there was no next question.

I applaud you for living your convictions, choosing to personally shoulder the associated costs and burdens to make a difference. Willingly taking on a special needs adoption takes special kind of person. I hope you kids bring you much joy and happiness.

The problems that the defenders of abortion face start with biology, followed by logic, and the Constitution (supported by philosophy and morality).

First, they must try to deny the biological fact that the child is human, which cannot be done. Logically, then, that child must be a distinct human and therefore a person, which they must also attempt to deny and that denial fails.

If the child is, in fact, a human and therefore a person, then it ought to be protected by the Constitution as would any other person. To deny this goes against the philosophical and moral underpinnings of American culture that holds that all men/persons are created equal, and that all are entitled to the life, livery, and the pursuit of happiness. In order for the pro-abortion stance to be justified, they must deny those rights to the child and they must hold that the mother has rights beyond that of any other person (that to simply kill another person for mere convenience). Those are anathemas to the Constitution and to the foundation of American freedoms.

In the end, they are left with having to defend an indefensible position that denies biology and logic, goes against the Constitution and thus the moral and philosophical basis of America, and they must hold that some are created inferior to others while others are created superior to the rest. To base a position like that, justified only by legalism echoes perfectly with the claims of slave traders, Nazis, Chinese communists, and the most hard-line of Islamists. They will, of course, attempt to deny this as well, but facts prove plainly otherwise.

AC, historically, if a person remained unemployed and unproductive for too long starvation resolved the issue for them.

As for your example, I consider it invalid for a couple different reasons. What you are describing is a government intervening to end peoples lives where I"m advocating restraint upon the government intervention into the affairs of families. Once again I do not accept your false equivalence between an embryo and an adult Chemical Engineer.

Qouted for Snypers beneifit

Once again.

LMAO!

You are correct. Her name was Margaret Sanger. She founded the American Birth Control League, later morphed into Planned Parenthood, a more P.C. sounding name.

Libs think she was great because they don't know who she was or what she espoused. She wasn't too Politically Correct, but what do facts matter when it's the agenda that rules.

DF

Your argument falls at it's first premise.

An embryo is not a child, it is an embryo.

Is the DNA human, or not? The embryonic stage is very short, between conception and implantation, and abortion does not occur during this stage. The embryo, once implantation takes place, is a HUMAN fetus, by definition a human offspring, ergo a child. That's biology, and undeniable, though you must try to deny it as everything else stems from it.

Does an embryo have consciousness? The ability to react to stimuli and feel pain or comfort?

See the above you quoted re: embryonic stage.

To further answer your rather irrelevant question; the reaction to stimuli occurs very early in human development, within the first month which is generally before a mother knows she is pregnant.

At what point does consciousness begin? It certainly well beyond the embryonic stage.

No, they are not.

They are considered either an embryo or a fetus depending upon their stage of development.