If abortion is not murder,

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Convenience?

I personally know a woman who was pregnant with a fetus with zero viability, and it posed a significant health risk to the woman if carried to term.

I cannot imagine her and her husband facing that with no options because the government controlled the woman's body.

But, that unthinkable dilemma is just what the GOP is proposing.

You liberal idiots and your damned exceptions that you always run to with your emotional  arguments.....You know 98% of abortions amount to birth control for those too lazy to take the pill or put on a rubber....pure rubbish.

No, Teo, you're the one whose "argument" is pure rubbish.  This is much more complex an issue than your childish POV.  And since you can't have babies and never will, you should now STFU.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Convenience?

I personally know a woman who was pregnant with a fetus with zero viability, and it posed a significant health risk to the woman if carried to term.

I cannot imagine her and her husband facing that with no options because the government controlled the woman's body.

But, that unthinkable dilemma is just what the GOP is proposing.

The majority of those pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Convenience?

I personally know a woman who was pregnant with a fetus with zero viability, and it posed a significant health risk to the woman if carried to term.

I cannot imagine her and her husband facing that with no options because the government controlled the woman's body.

But, that unthinkable dilemma is just what the GOP is proposing.

You liberal idiots and your damned exceptions that you always run to with your emotional  arguments.....You know 98% of abortions amount to birth control for those too lazy to take the pill or put on a rubber....pure rubbish.

No, Teo, you're the one whose "argument" is pure rubbish.  This is much more complex an issue than your childish POV.  And since you can't have babies and never will, you should now STFU.

No this is still America and I can still say what I want and piss ant dictators like you and your ilk don't have to listen....

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Convenience?

I personally know a woman who was pregnant with a fetus with zero viability, and it posed a significant health risk to the woman if carried to term.

I cannot imagine her and her husband facing that with no options because the government controlled the woman's body.

But, that unthinkable dilemma is just what the GOP is proposing.

You liberal idiots and your damned exceptions that you always run to with your emotional  arguments.....You know 98% of abortions amount to birth control for those too lazy to take the pill or put on a rubber....pure rubbish.

No, Teo, you're the one whose "argument" is pure rubbish.  This is much more complex an issue than your childish POV.  And since you can't have babies and never will, you should now STFU.

No this is still America and I can still say what I want and piss ant dictators like you and your ilk don't have to listen....

Yeah, you're right...this is America...and I can now tell you to piss off.

Obamasucks wrote:What do abortion clinic bombings (last one in Pensacola was Dec 1984-Dr Bagenholm's office on Christmas Eve) and murders of abortion docs have to do with this topic? Stay on task Liberals

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Convenience?

I personally know a woman who was pregnant with a fetus with zero viability, and it posed a significant health risk to the woman if carried to term.

I cannot imagine her and her husband facing that with no options because the government controlled the woman's body.

But, that unthinkable dilemma is just what the GOP is proposing.

The majority of those pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions.

But not ALL...and mine was followed by a D&C.  In fact, I just read about a woman who had suffered a spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage, for the uninformed, was following up at Planned Parenthood, and had to go through a crowd jeering and screaming at her on the way in.  Need I remind you of the local clinic bombing?  The murdered doctor?  The anti-abortion activist who was sleeping with his charges?

Bob wrote:

Obamasucks wrote:What do abortion clinic bombings (last one in Pensacola was Dec 1984-Dr Bagenholm's office on Christmas Eve) and murders of abortion docs have to do with this topic? Stay on task Liberals

It has to do with the most extreme version of the "pro-life" movement.
And the significance of it has been pointed out many times,  but if you're not familiar with it,  I'll try to help explain.

The signficance of it is,  that you can go so far with anything you hate,  that you yourself become what you hate.

Vikingwoman wrote:
No, I wouldn't consider it a murder because it's not a human being yet. If I was eight or nine months pregnant,that's a different story.

Vikingwoman wrote:I'm not on any fence. A fetus is not a human being. It's tissue and cells.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:I'm not on any fence. A fetus is not a human being. It's tissue and cells.

As are you and I.

Joanimaroni wrote:

The majority of those pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions.

knothead wrote:It is the MOTHER'S decision to have control over her body NOT the government . . . . . . . not complicated.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Convenience?

I personally know a woman who was pregnant with a fetus with zero viability, and it posed a significant health risk to the woman if carried to term.

I cannot imagine her and her husband facing that with no options because the government controlled the woman's body.

But, that unthinkable dilemma is just what the GOP is proposing.

You liberal idiots and your damned exceptions that you always run to with your emotional  arguments.....You know 98% of abortions amount to birth control for those too lazy to take the pill or put on a rubber....pure rubbish.

No, Teo, you're the one whose "argument" is pure rubbish.  This is much more complex an issue than your childish POV.  And since you can't have babies and never will, you should now STFU.

No this is still America and I can still say what I want and piss ant dictators like you and your ilk don't have to listen....

Yeah, you're right...this is America...and I can now tell you to piss off.

You need to shave those legs there's  been increasing Yeti sightings.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Convenience?

I personally know a woman who was pregnant with a fetus with zero viability, and it posed a significant health risk to the woman if carried to term.

I cannot imagine her and her husband facing that with no options because the government controlled the woman's body.

But, that unthinkable dilemma is just what the GOP is proposing.

The majority of those pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions.

But not ALL...and mine was followed by a D&C.  In fact, I just read about a woman who had suffered a spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage, for the uninformed, was following up at Planned Parenthood, and had to go through a crowd jeering and screaming at her on the way in.  Need I remind you of the local clinic bombing?  The murdered doctor?  The anti-abortion activist who was sleeping with his charges?

You are a little confused, a spontaneous abortion can be complete or incomplete. An incomplete spontaneous abortion may require a D&C but will depend how much POC  (product of conception) is retained.  A complete spontaneous abortion does not require a D&C. I have had both.

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:It is the MOTHER'S decision to have control over her body NOT the government . . . . . . . not complicated.

Didn't she have the opportunity to "control her body" BEFORE she got pregnant?

Obamasucks wrote:

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:It is the MOTHER'S decision to have control over her body NOT the government . . . . . . . not complicated.

Didn't she have the opportunity to "control her body" BEFORE she got pregnant?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:If that's the case then get the government out of marriage all together...no  divorce courts no licenses no CPS, nada nothing...It's not their marriage it's yours and as a couple you shouldn't have them controlling it ....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yeah and SHE should pay for it and the money used to finance orphanages.