On May 22, 9:17 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 22, 8:03 pm,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowru...@comcast.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Tell us: Would you allow a woman to remove a fetus from her womb
without actively killing it, even though that would result in it
dying?
If you answer yes then you must accept abortion.
If you answer no then you show yourself to be a lie, and
all your ravings about "murder" are nothing but dishonest
propaganda.
I consider abortion murder, but it isn't up to
me to allow a woman to have an abortion or force
her not to have one.
The pro-liar turns tail from the hard question.
Your responses to what's posted in this thread,
like pro-liar, *****, etc. are just emotional
drama queen responses.
You're whining rather than addressing the question.
Your "hard question" needs
to be fleshed out a bit, and your findings for a
yes or no answer make no sense.
Why?
No, you're just squirming for some excuse to avoid the question
because it shows the fundamental lie of your position.
You didn't state the circumstances as to why
someone opposed to abortion would "allow" a
woman to remove a fetus from her body.
Why does it matter?
Is the baby being removed simply for the sake
of convenience? Then it matters to someone who
is opposed to abortion as you damn well know.
Without
actively killing it you say. So, in what manner
is the baby being removed so that it isn't killed
in the womb?
Induce delivery is the most common.
So, inducing labor with the intent to destroy
a life. Try to guess my take on it.
How far along is she?
Not relevant.
Not to you since it is not expedient for you
to admit that an innocent life is being taken.
And that it is, in all probability, being done
for the sake of selfish convenience.
Not far along
enough for the child to live?
Assume yes.
A valid assumption no doubt. The answer
is no. Your "hard question is just a
sleazy fraud.
Why must I accept each and every abortion if I
answer yes?
Because pretty much any abortion can be done that way.
It's still abortion isn't it, and I still
oppose it. What the hell is your point?
How do I show myself a "lie", and
yada, yada, yada if I answer no?
Because then your argument is not the "pro-life" argument.
It's the "punish women for sex" argument. She must be forced
to provide the use of her body because she commited the crime
of getting pregnant.
In most circumstances a woman can have sex
and also avoid becoming pregnant; also known
as being with child. Why force a child to be
conceived when that can be avoided? The child
did not force himself on the woman. Why execute
it? What crime did the baby commit?
Nobody is surprised. There is no honesty, no honor, no morality in
the anti-abortion ideology. It is all just hate of freedom and women
and fear of truth.
Where is the honor and morality in killing those
in the process of becoming fully fledged human
beings?
There is no such thing. Your question is based upon a lie.
Your entire ideology is based upon lies. Every argument you
come up with is based upon lies.
How so?
You pretend a fetus is a human being. It is not.
You pretend a fetus is not a human being. It is.
Here are some excerpts from news websites
wherein they use terms like fetus, unborn son, person
Go towww.google.comand search for "alien abduction".
Six men and six women convicted Peterson Friday of the
first-degree murder of his wife, Laci, and the second-degree Murder of
the fetus she was carrying.
Not two counts of murdering a person.
Wrong Ray, according to the verdict.
The couple had planned to name their son
Conner.
"Planned" to. Didn't.
How specious of you. It's more important to note
that Conner is referred to as "their son." How
do we know they didn't refer to him as Conner
after she was made aware of his gender?
The jury also
agreed on a "special circumstance" that calls for capital punishment -
namely that he killed another person - the fetus
The reporter screwup up. According to that law the fetus
WAS NOT A PERSON.
The jury agreed on a "special circumstance"
and the judge agreed also, Ray. If this phase
of Peterson's verdict and sentencing for his
crimes is unlawful, why hasn't it been overturned?
Surely he and his lawyers would have taken note
of it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6385208/
--
Ray Fischer
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
