This was posted earlier. Evidently, for some reason, I am not allowed to respond. At any rate, this was the comment.


According to the Bible, that fetus isn't a living soul until it takes its first breath. And that living soul has TWO parents, a mother AND and father, both of whom are supposed to raise the child with love and to become a responsible human being.Perhaps surprisingly, I would agree with the latter part, though it should be noted that the Bible just as clearly limits childbirth to married couples.

The first part, however, is questionable. It is pulled from Genesis where it states that God breathed the breath of life into the man and he became a living soul. But that particular man was not born, but rather created, and being made of the dust of the ground, was as dead as dirt until God breathed life into him. That is plainly not the case with with an unborn child. And there is a considerable body of text that shows God regarding the unborn child to be completely a living person. So to say, "according to the Bible," is really a stretch.

But even at that, the poster would have needed to take the Genesis account literally in order to use it as a prooftext, something the poster has never been willing to do.

Interesting thoughts, and without a full & clear legal definition to work with, about as good as it gets.
Therein lies a major stumbling block for both sides of the choice\pro-life argument.

good thing we also have established science .

"The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
(Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th ed. ......biology professor Bruce M. Carlson of the University of Michigan,)
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception … and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of life" (New York Times, April 26, 1981.....Harvard Medical School professor Micheline Matthews-Ross testifying in 1981 to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee)

I could give many other such quotes from the scientific community .

The question is not if a baby in the womb has a soul . The question is if the baby in the womb is a human life . That question has been conclusively answered by science .

The remaining question is a societal one . Is it ok to kill a baby that has not been born yet ?

Will you adopt it if it hasn't been aborted?

Irrelevant question. I said it was a societal question. I am individually not responsible for all human ills .

Just one baby????

And if the large percentage of society feels like you do? (and it does....)

Pro Lifer: Well the mother should just give the baby up for adoption if she doesn’t want the baby
Me: So who will adopt the baby?
PL: I don’t know there’s lots of couples who want to adopt
Me: Do you know any couple who is waiting to adopt?
PL: Um well not personally but like I know there’s lots of people waiting to adopt.
Me: Do you know what a domestic adoption costs?
PL: I don’t know. $15,000 maybe?
Me: The average cost of domestic adoption in the United States is $70,000 if you go through a private agency.
PL: Oh I didn’t realize it was that much
Me: Yep it’s really expensive. It can be more if you want a newborn straight from the hospital. Up to $120,000.
PL: Well, all life is precious.
Me: It really is. I’ve adopted through foster care and am currently a licensed foster parent. Would you be interested in becoming a foster parent yourself?
PL: Oh no, I couldn’t do it.
Me: Why not?
PL: It would just be too much for me right now.
Me: Why is that?
PL: It would be too hard to handle all the issues that came with it. I’ve heard horror stories.
Me: Yep it can be extremely difficult. But what if I told you that you were required by law to become a foster parent?
PL: what?
Me: what if you had to become a foster parent by law?
PL: they would never do that. That would never happen.
Me; Well, if a woman is forced to bear a child she doesn’t want, and she goes ahead and has that child, someone has to care for the child either through adoption or foster care. You have to do one of those two things.
PL: But I don’t want any more kids.
Me: So you don’t want someone forcing you to have a child in your home that you don’t want or aren’t able to care for?
PL: no, that’s not my job to raise someone else’s child.

ME: What’s that ? https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/td3/1/16/1f649.png 

There it is, folks. Have the baby, but we don’t want anything to do with it afterwards.

We will never know the answer to your question if a baby is wacked before it is born. I have been also told by pro baby killing advocates that adoption is no substitute for abortion.

A rough estimate is that there are over 2 million infertile couples on America's adoption waiting lists . And there are more who would prefer to adopt over having a child of their own ,

Is there a shortage of people looking to adopt ? Absolutely not .There is a shortage of people who would rather have their baby adopted over killing it .

And then of course we could start expecting people to be responsible and stop having sex with anyone and everyone outside of marriage. It's amazing how many problems that would solve. It was actually done that way for many centuries and it worked well.

I've been reading in several places that men are flocking to their urologists to get vasectomies -- so they can have sex outside of marriage with anyone and everyone -- and with no responsibilities in nine months.

June 30, 2022 article headline --
More men are seeking vasectomies now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade

The Cleveland Clinic said it normally receives three to four requests per day for vasectomies, but between Friday and Wednesday, it got a total of 90.

More men are seeking vasectomies now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. WadeAnd you can be certain that more women will exercise due care in the exercise of birth control. So as it turns out, responsible behaviors actually can be developed. Go figure!

Tom's post about adoption was a classic.

Joe Biden's view on abortion after Roe/Wade was decided.


In 1974, Joe Biden gave a notably candid interview to the Washingtonian, a D.C-area monthly magazine. Excerpts from that profile, which painted the young U.S. senator as conservative Democrat, emerged (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-civil-rights-quote/) in multiple contexts after became a candidate for the U.S. presidency in 2019. Among the many topics covered in the Washingtonian profile was the senator’s views on abortion in general and the Roe v. Wade specifically. Speaking of that 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Biden did say (https://www.washingtonian.com/1974/06/01/joe-biden-kitty-kelley-1974-profile-death-and-the-all-american-boy/) that he felt it went too far: “I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

I like the old Joe much better than the new Joe.

His point would be more valid if the issue was ONLY a woman's body . There is also the innocent life of a human baby to consider .

A thought to ponder...
If abortion is banned, how does the morning after, or Plan B, pill stand in this framework, legally ?

That's a great question. It will now be subject to state laws, I imagine.

Plan B ;or the morning after pill is contraception. It prevents pregnancy. It does not affect an existing pregnancy.

Depends on how you look at it. Some of those pills work by delaying ovulation or by preventing fertilization, but sometimes the effect is to prevent a fertilized egg (new person) from implanting in the uterine wall.

No, that is not the "effect sometimes."

Why it's done

Morning-after pills can help prevent pregnancy if you've had unprotected sex — either because you didn't use birth control, you missed a birth control pill, you were sexually assaulted or your method of birth control failed.

Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted. They work primarily by delaying or preventing ovulation.

Keep in mind that the morning-after pill isn't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486 or the abortion pill. This drug terminates an established pregnancy — one in which the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall and has begun to develop.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/morning-after-pill/about/pac-20394730

Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted.Thank you for reinforcing what I said. The key expression is, "that has implanted". It is more plainly stated here.


Emergency oral contraception (https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/video/birth-control-types-options) works primarily by delaying ovulation (https://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-understanding-fertility-ovulation). Hormone-based medications such as levonorgestrel pills may prevent pregnancy (https://www.webmd.com/baby/default.htm) by temporarily blocking eggs from being released, by stopping fertilization, or by keeping a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the uterus.Rather plainly if the woman has already ovulated, then "delaying ovulation" is no longer an option.

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/faq-questions-emergency-contraception#:~:text=Emergency%20contraception%20 works%20well.%20But%20you%20should%20take,you%20ha ve%20only%20a%201%25%20to%202%25%20chance

If it hasn't implanted, it's not a fetus.

No one said it was.

I kind of expected to read, "Oh well. I was wrong when I stated, "No, that is not the 'effect sometimes.'" But I can get over disappointment.

I do wish you would show me how to punctuate this sentence containing a quote within a quote within a quote.

"Oh well. I was wrong when I stated, "No, that is not the 'effect sometimes.'"

I was reading further. Until implantation takes place, that wad of cells (egg and sperm) is nothingness.

That "wad of cells" is not egg and sperm. It is a fertilized ovum with a completely unique genetic code, fantastically complex, and on its way to adulthood.

I hear you pro-abortionists frequently refer to the unborn child as a "mass" or, for you, "wad" of cells. I reply by simply pointing out that you and I are also a mass (wad) of cells. Does that make us "nothingness"???

In what way does implantation change the embryo from "nothingness" to "somethingness"? Why do you suggest that to be true?

If those blastocyte cells don't implant, then what?

I think you meant to type "blastocyst". If it does not implant, then it dies, much the same as death can occur all along the frequently perilous path to old age. Still, it has a unique genetic code, is not "sperm and egg", is fabulously complex, exhibits all the qualities of living organisms, and is on its way to adulthood.

Cleveland Clinic:

"Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo, and the baby's first nerve cells have already formed. Your developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus."

"Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo, and the baby's first nerve cells have already formed. Your developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus."

Could you provide that link? Otherwise, well done! So with the material you are appealing to calling the blastocyst a "baby", would you agree with that assessment?

Please apologize to me.

Could you also answer these?

I hear you pro-abortionists frequently refer to the unborn child as a "mass" or, for you, "wad" of cells. I reply by simply pointing out that you and I are also a mass (wad) of cells. Does that make us "nothingness"???

In what way does implantation change the embryo from "nothingness" to "somethingness"? Why do you suggest that to be true?

No apology. So noted.

A human being is a mass of cells that have become differentiated and have a variety of skill sets.

No apology. So noted.Nothing to apologize for. I accused you of nothing. I simply noted that you might have meant to say, "blastocyst" since it is, far and away, the more commonly used term. My comment was, "I think you meant to type 'blastocyst'" But you supported your term, and I commended you for that.


A human being is a mass of cells that have become differentiated and have a variety of skill sets.I'm glad to hear you say that. Differentiation begins very early on, and by the eighth week is advanced. So you would agree, by your definition, that the embryo becomes human no later than the eighth week?

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/13%3A_Human_Biology/13.65%3A_Embryo_Growth_and_Development#:~:text=Dur ing%20the%20third%20week%20after%20fertilization%2 C%20the%20embryo,%28%22switched%20on%22%29%20while %20other%20genes%20are%20switched%20off.

Now you were flatly wrong in your comments about the morning after pill. Have you acknowledged that???

If we forbid and outlaw abortion, then war also must be forbidden and outlawed.

Questions asked and unanswered as seems to be the norm.

1. I'm glad to hear you say that. Differentiation begins very early on, and by the eighth week is advanced. So you would agree, by your definition, that the embryo becomes human no later than the eighth week?

2. Now you were flatly wrong in your comments about the morning after pill. Have you acknowledged that???

As to your question, I would be happy to outlaw war if you can suggest a means of doing so. At any rate, I know of no one who considers war to be a good thing. I know of many people who celebrate abortion.

I know of many people, Trump included along with many Republicans, who encourage war and other mayhem.

Still two unanswered questions.

1. I'm glad to hear you say that. Differentiation begins very early on, and by the eighth week is advanced. So you would agree, by your definition, that the embryo becomes human no later than the eighth week?

2. Now you were flatly wrong in your comments about the morning after pill. Have you acknowledged that???

And now here's another. When has Trump, or any other repub, "encouraged" war and "other mayhem", and bear in mind that war specifically is what is being discussed? Please be specific.

Why do I have the funny feeling that there will now be 3 unanswered questions?

1. Human? With thoughts and feelings and intelligence and the ability to love or hate? No. It is an embryo.
2. No.
3. After the 2020 election and especially on January 6.

1. Just hours ago you said differentiation was the key to being human. Now you have chosen a completely different standard. Hmmm.
2. you were clearly wrong.
3. No specific statement, so it appears you are making it up as you go. He certainly never called for a war. Ridiculous.

1. Yes, differentiation plus emotions, attutudes, etc.
2. Nope.
3. What planet are you living on??? He wanted another Revolutionary War!!!

1. So an unconscious person with no emotions is not a person. What a strange theory.
2. Pride
3. Trump never called for war. You have no quote. You only have hate driven fantasies.

1. Hold the hand of an embryo.
2. No.
3. Dem ballots = tea thrown off Griffin's Wharf

1. Now it's being able to hold hands? You just can't make up your mind.
2. This is why I hate discussing anything with you. You are so arrogant you can't admit to being wrong. I said the morning after pill could cause the fertilized egg to not implant. You replied, "No, that is not the 'effect sometimes.'" I then posted from an article that showed it COULD cause the egg to not implant. But WG cannot possibly admit to being wrong about something. You might want to try changing your name to "AverageGirl". Then perhaps you could live on the same plane as everyone else. We all make mistakes.
3. You do realize that the Boston Tea Party was not done to start a war? Right? You do realize that it was a protest against what the colonists considered to be an unjust tax? So you have nothing. Trump never called for war or revolution. You are fantasizing again.

1. What tells us the embryo is a person?
2. So are you.
3. You said Trump wasn't trying to start a war. Thus, Boston Tea Party redux.

Wondergirl means she wonders a lot about reference questions and the people who ask them.

1. Already answered. "Still, it has a unique genetic code, is not "sperm and egg", is fabulously complex, exhibits all the qualities of living organisms, and is on its way to adulthood." I could add that it is already male/female, it is already developing systems, and it needs only time and safety to be held in a mother's arms. Note that shaking hands has nothing to do with it. Try shaking hands with a newborn. Good luck.
2. I showed you your arrogance in your refusal to admit to the most obvious thing on this site.
3. Except that, as I have already shown, the BTP was not carried out to start a war. Pay attention.

She should wonder about why she cannot admit to being wrong when she clearly is.

I'm out of this. You are too frustrating to discuss anything with. You don't know what you're talking about, and you won't listen to someone else who does know. You make statements you cannot support and then expect others to find support for you. It's just too much. If I could block you I would, but your position on this site makes that not possible, or at least that seems to be the case.

Best wishes.

1. Of course I can shake hands with a newborn baby, but not with an embryo.
2. And you regularly show us yours.
3. Trump learned from the BTP that starting a war is easy.

Kam the sham tried to liken the end of Roe to slavery . She said it was an example of ‘trying to claim ownership over human bodies.’

Kamala Harris at Essence Festival: Overturning Roe v. Wade 'problematic on so many levels' - CNNPolitics (https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/02/politics/kamala-harris-essence-festival/index.html)


Now I as someone who doesn't think babies should be killed also compare abortion to slavery because the baby is treated as less than a human .

And the mother's (woman's) rights have been taken away, no longer exist. Slavery.

what right is that ?

To have control over her body and what happens to it

The woman gave up that "right" getting pregnant .

The right to the life of the baby supersedes other rights We know that because that was the very first right mentioned by the Founders , The right to life under the Constitution is not debatable

The only argument the left has against that is the absurd contention that the baby is less than a human and does not deserve the right of life except at the mother's discretion. THAT WAS THE MINDSET OF THE PRO-SLAVERY MOVEMENT IN THE ANTEBELLUM days before the Civil War .

No male can purchase and possess a gun. He gave up that right because he has fingers.

Women "get pregnant" how? By whom?

the comparison escapes me . The baby is a separate human being ;not inanimate tool . It's like saying an astronaut is dependent on the rocket ship. If the astronaut exits the ship the astronaut dies. But no one argues that the astronaut is part of the ship.

As for the man thingy ..... He is an equal participant but you would not even give him a say if the baby lives or dies .

There is no defense for your position. Why do you consider an unborn baby to be a part of the woman's body ? Because the baby depends on the mother for it's existence If that were true than the mother would have a right to whack the born baby too . The baby is a helpless being for months after birth. There is actually a serious debate that if an abortion fails and the baby is alive outside the mother it can be killed like a seal . Some people who argue for abortion rights see nothing wrong with offing a mentally handicapped baby. There is actually names for those atrocities ...... “fourth-trimester abortion” or “post-natal abortion.” It all comes from the mindset that a baby is a disposable life at the discretion of the mother's "choice". .

As for the man thingy ..... He is an equal participant but you would not even give him a say if the baby lives or dies .
Oh, yes, he has a say -- IF he sticks around after he has his fun.

the comparison escapes me . The baby is a separate human being ;not inanimate tool .
You referred to rights. I stayed on that topic.

Some people who argue for abortion rights see nothing wrong with offing a mentally handicapped baby. There is actually names for those atrocities ...... “fourth-trimester abortion” or “post-natal abortion.” It all comes from the mindset that a baby is a disposable life at the discretion of the mother's "choice". .
Some people (usually males) believe in "offing" other people -- at home, in the neighborhood, at grocery stores, at churches, at schools, and even at parades -- with easily obtained guns. Why aren't guns prohibited?

Some people (usually males) believe in "offing" other people -- at home, in the neighborhood, at grocery stores, at churches, at schools, and even at parades -- with easily obtained guns. Why aren't guns prohibited?

Non sequitur Murder is outlawed regardless of the tool used .........except evidently abortion . That murder is thought of as some kind of right.

Oh, yes, he has a say -- IF he sticks around after he has his fun. Wrong
had my wife decided to kill my daughter I would've had no say

Wrong
had my wife decided to kill my daughter I would've had no say
Why not? You two were married.

A couple charged in connection with the death of a 2-month-old baby now faces more serious charges.
Officials announced upgraded charges for Nickolas Shane Stephenson, 35, and Diandra Haleigh Fuhr-Farlow, 28, were arrested in June after the death of their infant daughter Riley Leshae Hannah Stephenson.

Both have now been charged with first-degree murder in the death of their child, officials said.

North Carolina: Parents charged after 2-month-old died (wyff4.com) (https://www.wyff4.com/article/parents-charges-upgraded-murder-babys-death/40533076#)

Why are they charged ? The baby could not survive without them .They did not kill their baby .They decided to have a “fourth-trimester abortion” or “post-natal abortion.”

Married women don't opt for abortion without the father's consent ?

Spousal Notification: An Unconstitutional Limitation on a Woman's Right to Privacy in the Abortion Decision (hofstra.edu) (https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1516&context=hlr)

Men: Do not put your prized possession inside a woman's body unless you are willing, for the rest of your life, to be a father worthy of sainthood.

the comparison escapes me . The baby is a separate human being ;not inanimate tool . It's like saying an astronaut is dependent on the rocket ship. If the astronaut exits the ship the astronaut dies. But no one argues that the astronaut is part of the ship.A great point that has gone unanswered. It's just amazing that here we are living in the golden age of birth control with options women could only dream about 75 years ago, and yet people want to complain about men getting women pregnant. It's like me leaving my doors unlocked and open but then complaining about getting robbed.

Men: Do not put your prized possession inside a woman's body unless you are willing, for the rest of your life, to be a father worthy of sainthood.


I can go along with that . But it does not address the issue of married men having no say according to you if their baby gets killed . And it certainly has nothing to do with Kam the Sham's absurd statement that if a women doesn't have the right to kill her baby that she is a slave .

... yet people want to complain about men getting women pregnant. It's like me leaving my doors unlocked and open but then complaining about getting robbed.
1. And if (when!!!) we tell you, "No, thanks"?

2. Why is "Don't have sex unless you're ready to have a baby" said only to women and not to men?

Then the answer is no. Anything beyond that is rape. Is there something here difficult to understand???

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279849539_5031157746979512_4805283641168976355_n.j pg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=C6KHPia8kiEAX-qFJBY&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=00_AT9sVwyHwhswkHtivKuS0-NvWrxU_gjusnlOz7bniGyHrw&oe=62CB4481


But it does not address the issue of married men having no say according to you if their baby gets killed .
Of course he should have a say!

Isn't it funny that Ian knew one was an elephant and one was a dog. Not clumps of cells, but an elephant and a dog. Wonder why people can't figure out what a human is?

Isn't it funny that Ian knew one was an elephant and one was a dog. Not clumps of cells, but an elephant and a dog. Wonder why people can't figure out what a human is?
Ian knew what they were and posted them and then asked the question.

I could post a pic of a new born and ask the same stupid question. They cannot live on their own or make choices on their own…yet. Just a matter of time and keeping liberal dems from killing them.

I could post a pic of a new born and ask the same stupid question.
"New born" is one word. You're welcome.

You'd be able to tell the difference between a newborn human and a newborn elephant or newborn dog?

Hate to upset you. Many righty repubs have killed human unborns.

have killed human unborns."Unborn" is an adjective and not a noun. You're welcome.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unborn

Only repubs stand up for the rights of unborn babies. I've certainly not seen you do it.

"Unborn" is an adjective and not a noun. You're welcome

1. unborn noun. A single unborn offspring at any stage of gestation.
2. unborn noun. Unborn offspring collectively. Inheritance law allows property to be left to the unborn.
3. unborn adjective. not yet born; yet to come; future.
4. unborn adjective. not yet delivered; still existing in the mother's womb.

from Wiktionary

Only repubs stand up for the rights of unborn babies. I've certainly not seen you do it.
I am a registered Republican and a lifelong Christian.

"I am a registered Republican and a lifelong Christian," who, as I said, does not stand up for unborn babies. I said nothing about your political affiliation or religion, but I do know you are fine with killing unborn children. And there is, by the way, no such thing as a "lifelong Christian".

You can go with "Wiktionary". I'll stick with Cambridge and Merriam Webster.

Mr. Judge and Jury. Those poor unborns!!!!

Those poor unborns!!!!Yes, indeed. It is tragic to have your life snuffed out before you even get a chance at birth. Those unborn children deserve better. What a shame that you can't get behind that idea.

In just 14 years, the fertility rate has crashed from 2.12 to 1.64, meaning that both citizens and resident aliens in America are not replacing themselves.
While past demographic momentum has led to an all-time population high, the United States has already peaked demographically. And it will soon shrink and further age.
Thirty years ago, America had 80 million fewer people, but a quarter-million more annual births.
What explains the disappearing American?
Historically, as Westernized cultures become more affluent and leisured, whether it’s ancient Rome or modern America and Europe, they birth fewer children—even as their appetites for more household and personal help spike.
Life apparently is seen as too enjoyable to invest years in raising children..........



Figures on annual abortions remain hotly disputed. But the number of annual reported abortions still ranges somewhere between more than 600,000 to just under 900,000.
There may be almost 20 abortions for every 100 American pregnancies, or 1 in 5 pregnancies that are terminated.
Our popular culture reflects this multifarious growing reluctance to raise children. And currently only 65% of children grow up in families with both parents.
The 2012 Obamacare ad “The Life of Julia” fixated on the new ideal American woman: a single parent of one child, unmarried, and utterly reliant on nearly 65 years of government support.
The 2013 follow-up bookend ad fetishized “Pajama Boy.” He was supposed to be a typical prolonged-adolescent, man-child—sitting at home in his childlike footie pajamas, sipping hot chocolate.
“Pajama Boy” was likely the sort that “Julia” had no intention of marrying.
There are historical downsides—economic, cultural, social, and military—to nations that shun child-raising. They shrink in size, age, no longer believe in transcendence, become mostly agnostic or atheistic, and obsess on the self.
And sometimes they eventually become dysfunctional—and slowly disappear.

What Explains the Disappearing American? (dailysignal.com) (https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/07/07/what-explains-the-disappearing-american/)

Clueless tells of a 10 year old girl who had to travel out of state to terminate the presidency .

Biden outraged over 10-year-old rape victim unable to get abortion in Ohio | DW News - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2klGjO2L1s)

It seems that Biden had it backwards. The girl had to go to Indiana, not Ohio. And yeah, it sure sounds like he says to "terminate the presidency".

The whole issue of rape and incest will be on the front burner of the abortion debate.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/ohio-indiana-abortion-rape-victim

That is because it is the only argument they have without admitting that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape and incest .The vast majority are contraception after the fact .

That is correct. Something like 99% of abortions are pretty much elective.

That is correct. Something like 99% of abortions are pretty much elective.
And during the first trimester.

Nope. A little less than 90% are in the first trimester.

Nope. A little less than 90% are in the first trimester.
"The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, according to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm). Nearly 80% of abortions happen at or before 9 weeks gestation and 93% occur at or before 13 weeks."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2022/05/07/abortion-by-the-numbers/?sh=50263d5260a8

"Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed."
https://www.foxnews.com/story/fast-facts-u-s-abortion-statistics

You do realize that your statement above shows your contention that 99% of abortions take place in the first trimester is wrong? If we take that as an admission of being wrong, then that is indeed progress.

The Foxnews story is outdated, being from 2015. Still, I said a little less than 90%, and you now say a little above 90%. Oh well. One way or the other, I'm not sure what difference it makes. Do you feel a little better about a 6 month old child dying as opposed to a teenager dying? According to the logic you are using, you should practically have no concern over infant deaths.

This was my source. They say 88%.

https://prolifeaction.org/fact/abortionsstagepregnancy/

Let's make a deal. Get rid of assault and semi-assault rifles so children and teens et al. don't die.

Your deal is that I would agree to something and you would…?? At any rate, the vast majority of gun deaths are from handguns. And then there are knife deaths as well, so your proposal would not accomplish much. Might add that the general public does not own genuine assault weapons.

So you're saying no to getting rid of assault and semi-assault rifles because they don't kill enough people. Buffalo. Uvalde. Highland Park. Okay, sure.

Then let's get rid of ALL guns.

I carried an AR-15 (owned by a mentally challenged friend) for several months in my car trunk until I convinced him to surrender it to local authorities.

Then let's get rid of ALL guns.Your true colors now on display.

But what part of the "deal" involved YOU agreeing to something?

How about this as yet unanswered question? "One way or the other, I'm not sure what difference it makes. Do you feel a little better about a 6 month old child dying as opposed to a teenager dying? According to the logic you are using, you should practically have no concern over infant deaths."

A 6 month old child??? Why would that child die? Why would a teen die?

First thing I plan to do when I get to heaven is fuse together all earthly gun barrels and also all ammunition.

Evasive as always.

Evasive? I have no clue what you want to know. That's why I asked questions.

It's very simple. Why do you bring up the subject of 90% of abortions happening in the first trimester? Why is that important to you?

To counter your "A little less than 90% are in the first trimester." It's more than that.

Nope. Posts are permanent on this site. If you will look at your post 79 where, replying to my statement of, "That is correct. Something like 99% of abortions are pretty much elective," you replied, "And during the first trimester."

So why did you consider that to be important, that in your view 99% of abortions are in the first trimester? Or perhaps you consider it to be unimportant, in which case it is hard to imagine why you brought it up.

And then I did some research. Post 81.

Why did I consider that number important? Because of your Post 78.

What in post 78 caused your response? Please be specific.

There ain't much there. "Something like 99% of abortions are pretty much elective."

I hadn't even broached the "elective" part yet.

Evasive as always. Talk to someone else.

Evasive as always. Talk to someone else.
Evasive how? I'm answering your questions.

The Compost confirms that the story Clueless told about the 10 year old rape victim is bogus .

A one-source story about a 10-year-old and an abortion goes viral - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/)

Child services agencies in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, and other Ohio cities were unaware of any 10-year-old rape victims in their jurisdictions.
KJ-P sorta confimed that Clueless used the story to make a political point and had ummm ...not really done due diligence to confirm the facts behind the story .
"The President spoke to that — a young woman — just to show how extreme the decision on — the Dobbs decision was and just how extreme it is now for American public, the American families.”

It just seems amazing that with all the resources of the White House, they could not take the ten minutes it would have taken to confirm the story. No regard for the truth. Should that be surprising???

Jill Biden tweet included this. "For nearly 50 years, women have had the right to make our own decisions about our bodies. Today, that right was stolen from us." I suppose the good news is that liberal dems have finally figured out what a "woman" is.

And I figured out a difference that has confused me . What is a baby ? When a woman gets pregnant and wants to be pregnant then what is inside her is a baby . When a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to be pregnant then what is inside her is a clump of cells to be discarded as she sees fit .

Wouldn't it be yet another example of perceptions equating to reality? I'm a man but I think I'm a woman, so I must be. I live in the fountain of freedom, but I perceive that I am a victim of gross discrimination, so I must be.

I have had to talk to these pro-death advocates for several years now. Their arguments are nearly always foolish. I had one tell me that the fetus is not alive until 24 weeks. Really? Then it's dead until then? The lack of thinking is just terrible.

49389

What will happen to those millions of babies once they are born, take their first breath, and aren't wanted by their mothers?

If it makes you feel better then suggest they be killed after being born.

That would sure solve the problem wouldn’t it?

I see you refuse to answer my question. Do Repubs have a plan in place to deal with all the unwanted babies that will be born?

For all of history, parents have done that job. Is that no longer a good plan?

Do Repubs have a plan in place to deal with all the unwanted babies that will be born?

Yes. Their parents. That’s the plan. It seems much better than your plan of killing the babies.

Their parents don't want them. Set them at the front door of the fire station or police department or hospital or church? Throw them into a dumpster? Leave them in an alley?

Let's establish something at the beginning. Your plan is to kill them before they are born so, I suppose, you and everyone else won't have to be bothered with them. I think that is a despicable, sick plan and wonder at how Wondergirl could possibly endorse such a thing.

Now beyond that, we already have agencies in place to handle such children in addition to many pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Pro-abortion groups do not sponsor such agencies. I have worked with those very children in school. Many are adopted and others are in foster care. It's an imperfect world, but your plan of just killing them is abhorrent beyond description, so don't try to act like you have some sort of high moral ground because you most certainly do not. You and all the liberal dems who cannot be bothered with resisting abortion are in the same camp.

Barring some sort of extenuating circumstances, both mothers and fathers who do not want to raise/support their children should be the pariahs of society.

I am NOT planning to kill them before birth, yet you seem to think they will quietly disappear after they're born. But face the facts. There will be multitudes of unwanted babies. And no, foster care is not the answer. Adoption is a very long and expensive process. Agencies will be swamped. Funds will lacking. Now what?

I am NOT planning to kill them before birthThat is exactly what your plan is. You refuse to take any sort of stand against it, so your vote is for it to continue.

As to the rest of your comments, you don't know what is going to happen. Perhaps women will wake up and begin to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies. If the pathetic Biden group has their way, they will use yet more Monopoly money to pay for women to travel for abortions.

I would be all in for making adoption much easier and less expensive. Many foster care homes do a great job so it's sad to see you disparage them. The only real answer is a national return to basic morality where people get married and then have children. The level of self-centeredness now is just appalling. "I must have an abortion so I can continue to have sex with my boyfriend!" It will take a genuine Christian revival for that return to a genuine respect for life to happen in my view.

Good luck with all that.