Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 year - 84 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 273 Goods vs 209 No Goods

1. Economist
   7ace
   

   1ed9, no, it is not the mean. You do not seem to understand the technology. In fact, you confuse feticide with abortion. Feticide is killing a fetus inside someone's body, whereas abortion is removing the fetus from the woman's body. Thus, feticide is completely different from abortion. Further, feticide is neither necessary, nor sufficient for abortion. Please, read up some basic literature on this if you do not understand it. Death of the fetus is not the means to do an abortion. It is simply a consequence of abortion.

   That's a super intellectually dishonest argument.

   The objective of abortion, except for the ones done due to medical issues, is to kill the child so that the parents don't have to raise him/her.

   If we had enough technology where babies could be gestated outside the woman's body, other than those who abort for medical reasons, the people who abort their babies wouldn't use this technology to rear them.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 0 No Jab !

2. Economist
   e813
   

   7ace, what I wrote about abortion being different from feticide is not an argument, but a fact. You can look it up in a medical textbook if you want.

   What you write about the purpose, is your opinion. My opinion is that you are mistaken. Suppose that there was a box in which we could put the fetus, where it could grow and become a baby, who can then be adopted. I think that then people would use this technology instead of abortion.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 3 No Jab !

3. Economist
   a3f6
   

   C.h.i.n.k.y C.h.i.n.k.y bang bang I love you
   C.h.i.n.k.y C.h.i.n.k.y bang bang I know you love me too
   C.h.i.n.k.y C.h.i.n.k.y bang bang I love you
   C.h.i.n.k.y C.h.i.n.k.y bang bang I know you love me too
   C.h.i.n.k.y C.h.i.n.k.y bang bang C.h.i.n.k.y bang
   C.h.i.n.k.y C.h.i.n.k.y bang biddily biddily biddily bang
   C.h.i.n.k.y C.h.i.n.k.y bang bang C.h.i.n.k.y bang
   C.h.i.n.k.y C.h.i.n.k.y bang biddily biddily biddily bang

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

4. Economist
   d26a
   

   I think that then people would use this technology instead of abortion.

   you are wrong.

   "if a baby was born alive as the result of a botched abortion, Planned Parenthood believed the decision whether to provide that baby struggling for life on the abortion clinic table lifesaving support, “should be between the patient and the health care provider. [...] "An undercover sting has exposed several abortionists who openly admit they would let a baby die if a live birth were to occur in spite of the attempted abortion"

   https://aclj.org/planned-parenthood/362-infants-born-alive-result-botched-abortions-died-decade

   1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply

Post <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote> <blockquote>If it's before 12 weeks then the fetus cannot feel pain and no one wants it anyway, so I'm ok with it being aborted. </blockquote> This is a fine rule. Those who say "It a women's body", are you ok with 9 month abortions. </blockquote> I actually believe no one would be for 9 month abortions. It's also very unlikely that a pregnant woman decides on abortion so late. Why would she?</blockquote> I agree with you but you would have to be in favour if the main criteria is "It's my body"</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.