Show of Hands

You're disgusting

You're blocked.

Blocked from what?

I meant ignored but I changed my mind.

This isn't a place for the thin skinned. For the record, I don't know how anyone can argue that an unborn child is not a child. I understand our cultural willingness to murder, it's just so much more convenient, but I don't get the disingenuous insistence that a child in a womb is not a child.

Two rowboats are sinking 50 yards from shore. One has a six year old boy yelling, "Please help me, I don't want to drown!" The other boat has a crying newborn. You can save one but not both. What do you do?

What if I don't save either?

How many people die if I just sit there drinking a margarita?

How is that compassion? I realize it's a bit of a Sophie's Choice question but circumstances like that happen. Im horrified to let the newborn die but I'm saving the kid who is developed enough to call for help.

Ok, whatever that means.

And you find this to be some kind of insightful reasoning? You do realize that nobody gets hurt in a hypothetical situation, don't you? Here's one for you. There's an unborn child in a woman's womb. Do you kill it?

If she wants me to, yes.

Also, there's no such thing as an unborn baby. It's called an embryo

Is it a human embryo?

Yes, of course.

Like I pointed out earlier. You condone killing unborn children - and letting infants drown apparently - you just can't tell the truth about it. I understand that position. It's easier for you and your conscience. Unfortunately, this makes me question your character and your credibility. How can we debate if you can't be honest?

So I assume the death penalty and hunting for sport is fine with you. Yeah, don't even don't. I know your talking points. No, I don't offer the same rights to a cumulation of cells as I do a person. Not even close.

Wow, closed minded much?
I don't have "talking points," but if I did I would make sure they were honest and consistent. We were discussing abortion. Why do you keep changing the subject?

Is not every human a "cumulation of cells"?

And why are you the arbiter of rights?

This is obviously a complex issue that is difficult to debate through social media so I'm doing the best I can. I don't assign the same value to an embryo than I do to an independent human being. My newborn analogy was flawed, but just the same, I value that newborn's older sibling on a higher scale. I don't know if you're a pet owner but if you were, would you sacrifice your pet to prevent a woman from aborting?

Another strange tangent, but i will bite. I have two dogs, and if in some unimaginable, otherworldly circumstance I could save a human child - even one in an embryonic stage - by sacrificing one, or both, I surely would.

I'm surprised by your answer but I applaud your conviction. My conviction is equal to yours.

BTW, you seem to be saying that you have no problem with taking the life of a human as long as it is dependent. Does that go for the physically and mentally disabled and the elderly as well as children? I think you are just trying to justify a "progressive" stance. It really doesn't fly.

Do you really think I want innocent human life destroyed? Of course not. That's exactly why abortion is and will remain legal. It allows young, ill prepared women to be saved by not bringing a child into their lives whom they are unable to care for. They would otherwise both lose.

Exactly, our society accepts the killing of unborn children because it is more convenient. I understand that. That's where the debate should begin, not with the ignorant notion that they are not human. That was my only point this afternoon. I'm glad we agree. Now maybe we can make it less frequent because, frankly, it's a disgusting practice.

Since the collection of cells isn't a baby, is it okay for the mother to drink, smoke, and/or use legal drugs that would harm the fetus were it to become a baby?

It's irresponsible but her choice.

One argument I can't ever wrap my head around. If a pregnant woman were to be murdered, the murderer would be charged with 2 deaths. The law seems to think that it's only murder if the mother didn't get an abortion? So logically, the baby is only a baby if the mother decides it is. So women have some powerful God-like power to create children by wishing it so.

There is no such thing as an unborn child. The term is embryo.

Why is it irresponsible? It's a parasitic collection of cells.

A rose is a rose

I don't know where to begin. Help me out. What is your argument?

If the mother to be isn't responsible for protecting the life of another tiny human to be. Then why is it irresponsible for her to live how she likes?

Because if she wants to bring a child into the world, she ought to protect it.

But is it a child or a embryonic collection of cells?

Exactly, the mother must protect the child from the start - because it is a child, or an embryo as you prefer, same thing.

Cells, I said that before.

By your own logic, it's not irresponsible. Yet you stated it was.

I don't understand your logic and probably never will. But I appreciate the discussion, and especially that it has been respectful.

Cells, right, we are all cells. Nobody needs the biology lesson. You just can't bring yourself to admit that you enthusiastically support the killing of children because you believe it serves some greater societal good. I get it, but your righteousness relies on a lie you tell yourself. Please join us in scientific reality and begin the abortion debate with a measure of integrity.

With all due respect

Yes, I support murdering children. You're bleeping delusional.

How do you not understand your own logic?

Wrong again. A human embryo, by definition, is an unborn child. You refuse to admit that.

All of a sudden you're interested in science. What about global warming? What about evolution? You're so willing to protect the lives of a conglomeration of microscopic cells buy eager to execute.

Don't change the subject plz. I used your own logic and you don't seem to understand it. If you don't understand then how am I supposed to?

Again we change the subject. Why is that?

OK, let's stay on the subject. What more is there to explore?

I'm willing to agree to disagree, and I believe you know why we can't get any more out of this. So, do you believe a male who identifies as female is female?

1. If it's not a baby, then why is the mother being irresponsible?

2. How do you not understand your own logic

3. Why does the decision of the mother decide if the collection of cells is a baby or not

No. I'm not that far left.

Cruz dude, LibArtie cannot make that admission. That would force him recognize that there might be room for another legitimate opinion about abortion.

Asked and answered.

Well done. There is such a thing as too crazy.

I'm a little confused, sry. Can you plz answer with the question numbers? Capt Morgan has been spending some time with me tonight.... 🍻

Yes. Transvestites cross my liberal line.

Oh, I don't begrudge the transvestite the right to peaceably transvest. Whatever floats your boat. I reject the gender by identification notions.

And my question answers plz.....