[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> conception while others commonly considered it a person only   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> after it survived for a year.  To cut off one of your   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> societies considered killing a child before it reached the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> age to be recognized as a tribal member.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she will give birth to a doughnut?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> woman and her doctor only.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby   
   which is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> her pregnancy or terminate it.  How and why she would make   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> option.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> I consider it none of my business and something that should   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> be strictly between her and her doctor.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> You approve of killing babies.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Not at all.  I support the right of a woman to choose   
   >>>>>>>>>>> whether or not to have a baby.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Which means.....drumroll please...   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it.  At   
   >>>>>>>>>> least admit what you stand for.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> All babies have been born alive.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,   
   >>>>>>>> you would demand they treat it, right?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I stand for exactly what I said.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Yes you do.  You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby   
   >>>>>>>> whatever you want it to mean.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a   
   >>>>>>> person with the rights and legal protection of any person.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What you suspect is irrelevant.  The facts show most   
   >>>>> abortions occur very early and very few occur during late   
   >>>>> term and most of these are based upon medical necessary.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Goal post moving noted.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nonsense, as we both know.  Your "suspect" is still   
   >>> irrelevant.  It is hardly fact.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The goalpost moving is attempting to dismiss the subject  because of   
   >> your unproven premise.   
   >   
   >There is no "goalpost moving" being attempted. You're impaled on the horns of   
   a   
   >dilemma, and you don't have a clue how to get off. If a developing fetus is a   
   >"baby," and if a not-yet-implanted viable embryo is a "baby," and if aborting   
   a   
   >fetus is murder, then destroying the embryo is murder.   
   >   
   >The subject or topic is the murder of "babies." That's the topic. Stay on it.   
      
   You may be responding to the wrong person. Attila does not consider either an   
   embryo or a fetus to be a baby.   
      
   --   
   "Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing   
   compared to the revolving door of father figures."  -- JD Vance   
      
   #NEVERtrump   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)