[continued from previous message]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh look at where you're going...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
I'm responding to the right person. I know that about "Attila." I also know
that
"NoBody" considers *both* an embryo and a fetus to be a "baby." She's trying to
have it that the destruction of one is a murder, but the destruction of the
other is not. She can't have it that way. It's the same topic.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
