Then what would you call a person that is 8 months pregnant? That's not a child inside her?

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

I appreciate prayer and will do the same for you.

And FWIW, Evangelical scholars use to endorsed the abortion guidelines approved by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, years before Roe and before the 'life at conception' was widely espoused and used for the culture wars), though few still insisted that all abortions are sinful.

---

Why won't you answer my simple question?

I've now asked you and copied you 4 times.

You're a coward. And arguing in bad faith.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Then what would you call a person that is 8 months pregnant? That's not a child inside her?

---

I called him the spawn of evil because he kept me vomiting constantly and then would kick my bladder in the middle of the night for funsies

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's not a baby (and you know this) and in Franklin's time people did not believe ensoulment happened at conception for it to be considered murder. That extreme position is a more modern concept that Republicans propagandized for our culture wars.

---

You know, we have enough historical evidence as to the rationalizing people do that wish to engage in the extermination of human life. Each and every time the subject on the chopping block had to have their humanity stripped away as to make things palatable as to reconcile their morals and ethics. You are a weak human because you can't call it what it is so you have to rationalize as to what it "isn't" as to not offend your sensibilities.

What's funny is I have heard the argument "well God killed babies". Why is it when God plays God it's abhorrent, but when man does the same thing it's argued as a right? Some how men think their morals are superior to that of God never admitting that the very same morals they wave in people faces come from the very God they seek to slap in the face.

Faustus said:

---

The trick was getting them to hold onto his key, which a kite had made off with, during a storm.

---

During a storm, Insert the key into you meat coffer and wait patiently.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's not a rare occurrence if it happens at a rate of 1 in 50 pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are a life-threatening gynocological emergency and a significant cause of maternal morbidity. The medical treatment is abortion,

---

Ectopic pregnancies are also non-viable, essentially by definition. The fetus is going to die regardless.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Ectopic pregnancies occur in 1 in 50 pregnancies and must be aborted or the woman will die.

---

It's closer to 1 in 100 across the general population, it's just that women who have already had one are more likely to have another. And again an ectopic pregnancy will either spontaneously abort or kill the mother (and be killed all the same) if not acted upon by modern medicine.

Calling this scenario abortion is sort of like calling the assisted suicide of a terminally ill patient with weeks to live murder. It's technically true as a matter of law (in most states at least) but in practice it's dubious labeling. In both cases you're just hastening an IMMEDIATELY inevitable outcome, and your alleviating suffering in the process of doing so.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

Pastor Dave Barnhart, Saint Junia United Methodist Church, Birmingham, Alabama.

---

This might actually be the dumbest ****ing thing I have ever read. I mean holy ****

Actually, more like unholy ****

Fear InoculAg said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

Pastor Dave Barnhart, Saint Junia United Methodist Church, Birmingham, Alabama.

---

This might actually be the dumbest ****ing thing I have ever read. I mean holy ****

---

Yep. The dumbass looks exactly like you would suspect.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

I find the Republican's position equally hypocritically and so extreme that people in the Dark Ages would think it's crazy. Republicans don't morn miscarriages as if they actually thought a fetus was a person

---

I don't know about you, but ours was really tough. It did a number on me and I can only imagine how much my wife truly struggled with it deep down...it was very hard on her and we did mourn. But yeah, why would we mourn a 7mo fetus the way we would a 7 year old child dying? What point are you even trying to make? Do you think I pretend to mourn every child that gets aborted or doesn't survive pregnancy? I don't mourn other full grown humans that I have ever met dying unless I'm really close to them...but I don't think it's ok for them to be killed.

And your first statement is hilarious. People in the dark ages were unsophisticated savages who did not value life like we do. And even with that, they would have thought people who are confused as to what constitutes a man vs a woman were absolutely f-ing insane.

What is a baby?

Something no one ever talks about is exponential decay of population surrounding all the abortion talk..

Pence response to Kamala

Quote:

---

'I say with the lives of 62 million unborn boys and girls ended in abortion since 1973, generations of mothers enduring heartbreaking and loss that can last a lifetime: Madame Vice President, how dare you?'

---

All those potential mothers and grandmothers that will never come to be in that 62 million. If a quarter of them became mothers that's around 15 million.

No one is talking about flattening that curve.

Still a coward that won't answer a simple question.

Par for the course.

Anyway. For the other godless nature denying leftists on here,

If we could outlaw all abortion except the abortions that are "needed" due to rape incest and failed pregnancies (and threatened physical health of the mother)… would you be ok with it?

Quote:

---

If we could outlaw all abortion except the abortions that are "needed" due to rape incest and failed pregnancies (and threatened physical health of the mother)… would you be ok with it?

---

I'd definitely take that deal, though I recognize the question wasn't directed at me.

Appealing to a Methodist pastor on a forum full of baptists is pretty freaking hilarious. Not only are you appealing to authority to a bunch of people that don't exactly like authority, you're also appealing to an authority that the vast majority of them aren't going to respect.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Franklin was also about half ass scoundrel... WGAF?

---

If you haven't seen John Adams on HBO watch it. One of the best historical series of all time. Benj spent enough time in France bathing with ladies in order to get the money to fund the Revolution.

Go google the reference. Just your typical hateful unattractive chubby liberal woman spreading lies and nonsense, as usual. Ben Franklin wasn't referring to abortions. So f'in stupid.

Tanya 93 said:

---

These things were around well before Franklin


Midwives had their own recipes to expel a fetus that had stopped growing in the womb as early as the 9th century

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's not a baby (and you know this) and in Franklin's time people did not believe ensoulment happened at conception for it to be considered murder. That extreme position is a more modern concept that Republicans propagandized for our culture wars.

---

It's not really a human, it's just a Negro.
It's not really a human, it's just a Jew.

You're in great company.

NSTN8 said:

---

Go google the reference. Just your typical hateful unattractive chubby liberal woman spreading lies and nonsense, as usual. Ben Franklin wasn't referring to abortions. So f'in stupid.

---

Ben Franklin wasn't referring to anything. It was a compendium that he compiled and printed for sale. The instructions were lifted from a Virginia medical book.

Ben Franklin was an early proponent of property taxes to fund things like fire departments before these things existed.

In his younger years he worked for a news paper printer and would also write political opinion pieces under a pen name to influence politics. He later went on to own a news paper.

He ran away from home as a teen and hitched a ride on a ship out town to further up the coast.

Read his autobiography. It's a really great read with great insights into the time period and some glimpses into how politics was played in the 1700s.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

I find the Republican's position equally hypocritically and so extreme that people in the Dark Ages would think it's crazy. Republicans don't morn miscarriages as if they actually thought a fetus was a person (and neither did people in the Dark Ages) but they will restrict a real person's liberty by taking away their bodily autonomy. Republicans don't fully address the needs of the fetus or the needs of the recently born. Infant mortality rates are very high and foster care underfunded and riddled with abuse. Republican positions are so very contradictory and hypocritical that I honestly believe they are made in bad faith.

---

So this garbage stays up but my response gets deleted? WTF?

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

An ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy.

Specious example.

---

Not exactly a specious example when that exclusion is not always provided in law or the fact that it is a condition that meets with Republican's absurd assertion that life/ensoulment/personhood begins at conception.

---

Your problem is not a conservative belief that life beings at conception. Your issue is the fact people believe life begins at any time before the object leaves the birth canal.

For you, that individual inside the uterus is merely a clump of cells that can be disposed of at any time for any reason any woman chooses.

Abortion on the last day of the third trimester? You're good.

Abortion because parents find out the child is a girl? You're happy.

Abortion because, sometime in the future, parents may be able to find out a child's potential sexuality? You have no issue with that at all.

For an individual who claims to support science in all its forms, you hold to an arcane, cartoonish version of human development that has moved far beyond what was known in the early 1970s.

Why is that? Why would you buy into the quack science of global warming without question but deny any and all science as it relates to childhood development to hold fast to an ignorant opinion that the individual inside the uterus is simply a hulk of tissue?

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's not a baby (and you know this) and in Franklin's time people did not believe ensoulment happened at conception for it to be considered murder. That extreme position is a more modern concept that Republicans propagandized for our culture wars.

---

It is a baby, and you know this.