 |
I was right again. It's four for four now. Jl is a card-carrying supporter of abortion. This is not debatable. Jl has admitted it in his own words. Like most supporters of abortion, he doesn't like it but believes it is allowed in some cases. That is the mainstream opinion of most Americans and Jl fits right in. His hypocrisy notwithstanding, he cannot deny his own confession.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you! You copied my post very ably. Well...somewhat ably.
There is a significant difference between the two of us. I answer questions. You don't. I'll prove it! What about the other 99.99% of abortions that are not performed to save the life of the mother? What is your view of them? Do you defend them?
BTW, the side order of hotly seasoned anger is not a pretty sight.
Dear reader. Prepare to see my point proven...again.
Thank God for that. But the difference is not about abortion. In fact, our belief on abortion is identical. I don't like abortion, but I recognize there can be a legitimate reason to have an abortion. THAT IS PRECISELY THE IDENTICAL POSITION OF Jl WHICH HE HAS STATED RIGHT HERE ON THIS VERY WEBSITE AS RECENTLY AS YESTERDAY.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Stop digging, Jl. The pit is deep enough. All you can do now is admit you lied or else shut your mouth about abortion forever.
Well, that is an answer of some small sort. Of course you already have said you don't believe in unlimited abortions, and yet you also claim that we should not tell women what to do with their bodies. So the obvious question remains which you have yet to answer. What restrictions would you agree with, even understanding that it would automatically deprive women of some control over their bodies? In other words, what are those "legitimate reasons"?Quote:
I don't like abortion, but I recognize there can be a legitimate reason to have an abortion.
Are you Hannibal "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti" Lector???Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You must keep up, dear WG. You must keep up. And why is your mind filled with such ghastly images? Good grief. "Hotly seasoned anger" somehow turns into cannibalism? What have you been watching?
The same reason you gave to support abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The issue here Jl is YOU and your stance on abortion. My position is well-known. I have never denied being pro-choice. All the rest of your blather is nothing but you deflecting away from yourself and your hypocrisy.
You lost, Jl, stop making a fool of yourself.
You're pro-choice, but you don't like abortion? Really? Why don't you like it?
The only reason I have given is self defense, where the mother's life is clearly in danger. That hardly occurs ever any more. So you are saying ("The same reason you gave to support abortion") that reason is your legitimate reason? Well, if that's it, then how can you be pro-choice for the other 99.99% of abortions? You must have many other legitimate reasons you have not yet posted.
You're scrambling, Jl.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Right above in black and white is your admission of being pro-choice. For you who constantly picks apart words and their plain meaning, this should be a slam dunk for you.
Yet, you want to have it both ways. You want to admit to supporting abortion as you have done above, and yet you want to continue to criticize and condemn others who support abortion.
It's over, Jl.
I've been very open in my position. In that remarkably small sliver of cases where the woman's life is really endangered, I don't see much choice there. If the woman dies, the baby dies automatically, so nothing is gained. If the baby is viable, and it typically is, then it can be delivered and both survive. So it is certainly over in the sense that my answer is open and complete.
This is my question from above which you did not address. I am trying to understand your position. "So you are saying ("The same reason you gave to support abortion") that reason is your legitimate reason? Well, if that's it, then how can you be pro-choice for the other 99.99% of abortions? You must have many other legitimate reasons you have not yet posted." Not trying to irritate you, but just trying to understand your position. So far, I have not seen any limitations you would place on abortion, so I assume you are OK with, for instance, partial birth abortions. Correct?
One more point. You said earlier that I had posted a "painting". The pic of the 19 week fetus was simply a stock photo off the internet. There are many others like it. You can double check any pic by simply right clicking it, copying the image address, and putting it into a browser.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/cf...3f64c836f6.jpg
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It is basically true. There are very rare cases where the baby survives, but it is very, very rare. Once the mother dies, the clock is ticking and ticking fast.Quote:
Not true.
Not if the pregnancy is in the third trimester.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes it is. Once the mother dies, her heart stops beating. The baby depends upon her blood for oxygen at the placenta, so the clock starts ticking big time at that point. Time is measured in a very few minutes.
No question about that - your position is supporting abortion. That discussion is over and done with.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Small sliver, big sliver - that's supporting abortion.Quote:
In that remarkably small sliver of cases where the woman's life is really endangered, I don't see much choice
Even with your attempts to ratonalize your abortion choice, you can't escape the fact that the attempt itself is obviously a pro-abortion stance.Quote:
So it is certainly over in the sense that my answer is open and complete.
My position is simplicity itself to understand. I support pro-choice re abortion. There. Got it? Naturally, you're playing the diversion game again - change it from you to me. Too late, Jl, it won't work.Quote:
This is my question from above which you did not address. I am trying to understand your position.
Jl, read my lips. I-AM-PRO-CHOICE. There is nothing "to understand". Pro-choice means pro-choice. You have this weird problem with the plain meaning of words.Quote:
Not trying to irritate you, but just trying to understand your position.
Like any issue under the law, I support whatever the law states. Your attempt to involve me in your hypocrisy is a failure, Jl.Quote:
I have not seen any limitations you would place on abortion
A perfect example of your difficulty with the plain meaning of words. More straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Give it up, Jl. When you're down to painting vs. picture, it's all over.Quote:
You said earlier that I had posted a "painting". The pic of the 19 week fetus was simply a stock photo off the internet.
post deleted
You don't understand the difference between a painting and a picture? It's kind of significant. A painting can be intentionally inaccurate. Pictures...not so much.
As to the rest, I can only assume that you have changed your position. You said earlier that you did not believe in unrestricted abortion and that you do not like abortion. Now you say are completely pro-choice. I find that hard to imagine. So partial birth abortions, the ghastly procedures described earlier, sucking the little baby out of the womb with a suction tube, or just any means for taking the life of an unborn baby is what you are for? You have no problem with the killing of the other 99.99% of babies? They mean nothing to you? A mother in the ninth month of pregnancy can have her baby killed with your approval? If that indeed is your position as you've stated, then you are, in effect, pro-death. That is hard for me to understand, but you did answer the question, and for that I commend you, but perhaps it has become apparent why you are so reluctant to provide answers.
So our difference is now clear. I favor life for the 99.99% and mourn the loss of the .01%. You are OK with death for them all. Is that a fair statement?
It is totally, completely insignificant in this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Dear Lord! I have changed NOTHING! I am pro-choice. That means I support a woman's choice to have or not have an abortion. Nothing could be more clear except for the fact that you do not understand what pro-choice means.Quote:
As to the rest, I can only assume that you have changed your position. You said earlier that you did not believe in unrestricted abortion and that you do not like abortion. Now you say are completely pro-choice. I find that hard to imagine.
Since you announced your acceptance of abortion depending on circumstances - which is the mainstream position - we're in agreement.Quote:
So our difference is now clear.
You are OK with the death of 4,000 fetuses every year. Is that a fair statement?Quote:
I favor life for the 99.99% and mourn the loss of the .01%. You are OK with death for them all. Is that a fair statement?
This was your initial statement. "I agree with the author of the piece and totally support a woman's right to choose. AT THE SAME TIME, being against completely unrestricted access to abortion does not mean a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE should be legally infringed." So that clearly seems to say that you are against "completely unrestricted access to abortion." Now you are simply saying you support a woman's choice to have or not have an abortion." So I can only assume you now support "unrestricted access to abortion." If not, then please state the restrictions you support. Otherwise, you are sanctioning, "...partial birth abortions, the ghastly procedures described earlier, sucking the little baby out of the womb with a suction tube, or just any means for taking the life of an unborn baby..." If you are not OK with any of those, then please say so.Quote:
Dear Lord! I have changed NOTHING! I am pro-choice. That means I support a woman's choice to have or not have an abortion. Nothing could be more clear except for the fact that you do not understand what pro-choice means.
BTW, the author of the piece, who you said you agreed with, said this. "I do not support completely unrestricted access to abortion." Still waiting to hear what those restrictions are which you would agree with.
When a house is fully engulfed in fire, firefighters do not allow the mother to run back in to attempt to save her children since they know it will accomplish nothing and just result in the mother's death. In the same way with abortion, rather than lose the mother AND baby, it is best to preserve the mother's life. It is one of the terrible tragedies of life, just like the housefire. 4,000? A fantastic exaggeration. Remember what Guttmacher said?
But anyone who endorses 900,000 abortions a year for, as I understand you, any and all reasons looks a little strange with his supposed concern about 4,000, don't you think?Quote:
Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood did more to promote and spread abortion on demand throughout the world than any other individual. Nearly fifty years ago, he commented, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life.”
That's correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That is a CHOICE made in favor of the life of the mother over the life of the baby. Others may choose the life of the baby over the life of the mother. In either case, it is a CHOICE.Quote:
In abortion, rather than lose the mother AND baby, it is best to preserve the mother's life.
Not a bit exaggerated. The figure is from a number of sites including the World Health Organization. It is the number from your statistic of .01% whose loss you "mourn". Apparently, you say things off the top of your head when they could easily be verified by a simple internet search.Quote:
4,000? A fantastic exaggeration.
What I think is that you can't see things accurately. Pro-choice does NOT mean "endorsement". The 4,000 figure is YOUR number of abortions whose loss you "mourn".Quote:
But anyone who endorses 900,000 abortions a year looks a little strange with his supposed concern about 4,000, don't you think?
You've never answered these two questions: How would you handle it if YOUR unmarried daughter got pregnant? What would happen to the newborn?
He'd abort that sucker faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". He even knows HOW to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I most certainly did. Post 46. Pay attention.Quote:
You've never answered these two questions: How would you handle it if YOUR unmarried daughter got pregnant? What would happen to the newborn?
What a sick statement. That explains your position. Unborn children are just "suckers" to you. To me, they are people deserving of protection. You'll be remembering that sick statement for a long time.Quote:
He'd abort that sucker
Unanswered questions.
1. How would you kill the 19 week fetus if you were the doctor?
2. You said you were in favor of restrictions, but now you seem not to be. Which way is it?
3. Is WG smarter than a medical school website? (rhetorical)
Pay attention??? You answered only ONE of my questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm certainly a better googler than you are, thanks to 28 years in public libraries. (factual)Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yeah, except when you choose to abort them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That statement - " He'd abort that sucker faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". - was obviously sarcasm. But you will cling to it like a fly on s**t.Quote:
You'll be remembering that sick statement for a long time.
Then you need to start exhibiting it here. So far, you've shown nothing. You offered your own silly opinion which was at variance with a med school. Saying that suction abortions and D&E abortions are never needed is just a really uneducated comment. Sorry, but that's how it is. End of story.Quote:
I'm certainly a better googler than you are, thanks to 28 years in public libraries. (factual)
What would we do with the newborn? Those questions are hard to answer. When my daughter was at that age, wifey and I were fifty or so. At that age, we'd likely encourage our daughter to keep the child and we'd pitch in to help. At our age now (late sixties) adoption would be a better course. Of course our daughter would have a big say in the matter. But I would never consent to killing the unborn child, and would NEVER refer to it as a "sucker". WG, I know you practically worship Athos, but it's a stain on you to not object to that sickening reference.
Yeah. You got caught in your little sick game, and now you're mad. Sorry, but you own it now. And your little cussing exhibition, like a three year old, looks even worse.Quote:
That statement - " He'd abort that sucker faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". - was obviously sarcasm. But you will cling to it like a fly on s**t.
Jl, I understand your need to fight back. But if anyone here is "caught", clearly it is YOU.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your replies get more and more desperate as you sink deeper and deeper into the morass of your own making. Absurd and bizarre, tho' it is.
From your confusion about your own stated position on abortion, to your willful ignorance re the Covid effects from the SD motorcycle rally, to your quite revealing position on standing before God and telling the truth, and now to the pathetic comment above, you have nowhere to go, Jl.
Try the truth and try to learn from your betters here. You'll be much better off.
Apparently you want a plethora of links that you will happily read. So noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I said "never"? Please give us the Post #.Quote:
Saying that suction abortions and D&E abortions are never needed is just a really dumb comment.
That would be a lot on the plate of a 15 y/o girl. Up at night with a squalling infant. Breastfeeding or bottle feeding? Doctor visits. The new mom wants to go to school events, dances, go on dates, has to do homework, go to the library after school. She and her parents may be shunned by other students and neighbors and church members because she is an unmarried mother. And on and on.Quote:
What would we do with the newborn? Those questions are hard to answer. When my daughter was at that age, wifey and I were fifty or so. At that age, we'd likely encourage our daughter to keep the child and we'd pitch in to help.
After the fourteenth week of pregnancy, scraping methods can no longer be used; instead the uterus must be induced to expel the fetus, resulting in premature labor. In the saltwater method, a needle is inserted through the abdominal and uterine walls and into the amniotic sac. A portion of the amniotic fluid is removed; a saline solution is then injected between the uterine wall and the amnion, forcing their separation. After a day or so, contractions begin. The woman goes through labor and delivery to expel the fetus.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/abortion
Not having your belief that killing the baby is much preferable to a person having to undergo some healthy hardship and actually having to forego going to a dance (gasp!!), I'd stick with my decision. You think that's hard? Go back 200 years ago. Study some history. Read about the Dust Bowl in the 30's. Try telling your daughter when she's 12 that getting pregnant out of wedlock is heck.Quote:
That would be a lot on the plate of a 15 y/o girl. Up at night with a squalling infant. Breastfeeding or bottle feeding? Doctor visits. The new mom wants to go to school events, dances, go on dates, has to do homework, go to the library after school. She and her parents may be shunned by other students and neighbors and church members because she is an unmarried mother. And on and on.
Sorry, but having to choose between something called the The Embryo Project Encyclopedia and a med school site, I'll go with the med school site every time. I still find it strange how you find it comforting to come up with some supposedly non-violent method of killing the unborn baby in that picture. Does it help you sleep at night?
Post 47. "You certainly jump to conclusions. No, it had nothing to do with that at all. A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus."
Post 62. "No, a fetus no matter how far along doesn't have to be ripped or suctioned out of a woman's uterus."
Happy now?
So you are happy with the method you described above? That's what you would do to the 19 week fetus in the picture? What do you tell the mother to do with her little baby? Flush it down the toilet? Get rid of the little "sucker"?Quote:
How would you kill the 19 week fetus if you were the doctor?
Other sites that confirm a D&E is done in the second twelve weeks. Would you like more? I can get them easily.
https://www.mottchildren.org/health-library/tw2462
https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org...ion-d-e.tw2462
https://www.springfieldrtl.org/abort...n-de-abortion/
https://www.stlukesonline.org/health...-evacuation-de
https://safe2choose.org/faq/mva-faq/...and-evacuaiton
And as the grandfather, you would regularly put her down, shame her, belittle her, rage at her for being so stupid. And leave all the work and care to your wife and daughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I answered your question.Quote:
I still find it strange how you find it comforting to come up with some supposedly non-violent method of killing the unborn baby in that picture.
Sure beats ripping and suctioning.Quote:
Post 47. "You certainly jump to conclusions. No, it had nothing to do with that at all. A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus."
So you are happy with the method you described above? That's what you would do to the 19 week fetus in the picture?
I'd certainly be more empathetic than you would be with a teen daughter who had sex out of wedlock and became a mother because of that.Quote:
What do you tell the mother to do with her little baby? Flush it down the toilet? Get rid of the little "sucker"?
How did you come to that stupid conclusion? It's just your prejudice at work. And you are the one who claims to be in favor of being kind and understanding? Well, so much for that with you.Quote:
And as the grandfather, you would regularly put her down, shame her, belittle her, rage at her for being so stupid. And leave all the work and care to your wife and daughter.
But you're in favor of ripping and suctioning as well! There's no method you are willing to go on record against. You seem to love it all.Quote:
Sure beats ripping and suctioning.
No you wouldn't. You'd have the unborn killed and forego having to inconvenience yourself. Between the two of us, I'm the one who would put my life on hold to raise a grandchild, and would love him/her with all my heart. You're the one voting for death. And when your daughter is twenty years older and torn with guilt, you'll get to explain to her why you voted that way.Quote:
EId certainly be more empathetic than you eould be with a teen daughter who had sex out of wedlock and became a mother because of that.
I hope you saw this.
Other sites that confirm a D&E is done in the second twelve weeks. Would you like more? I can get them easily.
https://www.mottchildren.org/health-library/tw2462
https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org...ion-d-e.tw2462
https://www.springfieldrtl.org/abort...n-de-abortion/
https://www.stlukesonline.org/health...-evacuation-de
https://safe2choose.org/faq/mva-faq/...and-evacuaiton
And this.
Post 47. "You certainly jump to conclusions. No, it had nothing to do with that at all. A fetus that size does not have to be ripped or suctioned out of a uterus."
Post 62. "No, a fetus no matter how far along doesn't have to be ripped or suctioned out of a woman's uterus."
Happy now?
A D&E is NOT the only method of expelling the fetus.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It seems to be your m.o.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No one ever said it was. There is suction, and there are even worse methods used in the third trimester. Want to hear about them? Oh well. It wouldn't make any difference to you. Your mind is made up absent any real evidence. Besides, if you really cared, you would already know.
A D&E does not EXPEL the fetus. The fetus is pulled apart and taken out in pieces, and you are happy with that? Is there nothing so shocking that you would be repulsed by it?
It was not my stupid, unkind, and inaccurate conclusion. It was yours, and based on no evidence at all. Sad. I do regret using the word "stupid", but I really don't know of a better descriptor.
R&S are not necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You are beyond mean!Quote:
No you wouldn't. You'd have the unborn killed and forego having to inconvenience yourself. Between the two of us, I'm the one who would put my life on hold to raise a grandchild, and would love him/her with all my heart. You're the one voting for death. And when your daughter is twenty years older and torn with guilt, you'll get to explain to her why you voted that way.
I do know and posted it above.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That makes no sense.Quote:
R&S are not necessary.
Is it not true?Quote:
You are beyond mean!
You did not. You don't know the material.Quote:
I do know and posted it above.
"A third trimester induction abortion is performed at 25 weeks LMP (25 weeks since the first day of the woman’s last period) to term. At 25 weeks, a baby is almost fully-developed and is considered viable, meaning he or she could survive outside the womb. For this reason, the abortionist will usually first kill the baby in utero by injecting a substance that causes cardiac arrest, and induces the mother’s labor to deliver her baby stillborn."
https://www.abortionprocedures.com/induction/
And you think my comment was mean? Look at what you're supporting and voting for. None of you here can bring yourselves to oppose this. It would violate your liberal orthodoxy. Kill them and deliver a dead baby. Pull out parts one at a time. Suction the little "sucker" out. You are in favor of all of it, and I honestly don't see how you can sleep at night.
Again,Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
After the fourteenth week of pregnancy, scraping methods can no longer be used; instead the uterus must be induced to expel the fetus, resulting in premature labor. In the saltwater method, a needle is inserted through the abdominal and uterine walls and into the amniotic sac. A portion of the amniotic fluid is removed; a saline solution is then injected between the uterine wall and the amnion, forcing their separation. After a day or so, contractions begin. The woman goes through labor and delivery to expel the fetus.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/abortion
You have seen seven links to the contrary including one med school. But if you want to believe your fairy tale, then go for it.
This is the altogether inaccurate description of a D&E on that website you linked. It's preposterous.Quote:
The dilation and curettage method, or the D&C, has been practiced since even before abortion was legalized in the US, and is now called the D&E, or dilation and evacuation. At one time a physician gradually enlarged the woman’s cervix by inserting a series of increasingly thicker rods, but now the cervix is dilated by administering medication. The physician then gently scrapes out the contents of the uterus using a spoon-like instrument called a curette.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 PM. |