[Wally_Sconce]

if morgantaller was pro-choice, how many babies did he deliver?

[DerbyX]

lily lily:

DerbyX DerbyX:

I want to know where you sit Lily? If you oppose abortion on the grounds of protection of the child then why not enact laws preventing women from engaging in behaviour known to be detrimental to the child?

Seems to me they are one in the same.

Such as what, Derby?

Would you support laws preventing pregnant women from smoking and drinking? Would you favour laws forcing women to be tested to ensure they complied?

How about laws designed to commit to a facility women who are determined to get an abortion at all costs.

How far are you willing to go in corrupting the rights of women?

[Wally_Sconce]

I'd be a lot happier if taxpayer's money wasn't used to kill babies. You don't need to criminalize abortion to improve our 43 abortions out of 100 live births. Let the narcissistic women pay for their own assassins.

Morgantaller made 11 million dollars a year of taxpayers money to kill babies. No tax payer should be forced to pay such a bill for something that some of us find so morally repulsive.

[Wally_Sconce]

43 women going for abortion for every 100 women that have live births.

No one can tell me that all 43 women were raped, molested, coersed, or otherwise forced to conceive a child. So just where the hell is the acountability for these narcissistic women? where is the empathy for the babies? we will never know what wonderful contributions some of these children would have made to canada.

Taking their lives was not something to hand out an award for.

If I had an order of Canada award, I would return it, as did others.

[DerbyX]

lily lily:

I wouldn't support those laws. Most people of my generation had mothers that smoked, and while I agree it's not the best choice, it's not necessarily completely harmful either.

You see those who are anti-abortion as "corrupting the rights of women", but do you see me accusing you of wanting to "corrupt the life of the unborn"?

In other words you don't support laws telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

I agree.

BTW, the same logic apllies. If you favour laws designed to prevent women from aborting children in order to protect those children then why not laws preventing women from harming the fetus in utero? Alot of people want laws charging peopleif they hurt a fetus in utero so why not laws protecting the fetus by preventing women from harming them?

Muddys the waters doesn't it? My logic is pretty sound.

[Wally_Sconce]

theee's a hypocritical double standard here, if a man has sex with a woman, he has no rights to force an abortion, and will be held financially responsible for that child.Why because the rights of the child are important.

Yet, a woman has sex with a man, she can just get an abortion, and the tax payers pick up the tab. just where in the hell did the rights of the child go?

[Wally_Sconce]

Derby, thats just great! you are arguing the side of abortion right by touting the merit of a woman's right to take drugs while pregnant. Don't you see how screwed up your spin on this issue is?

[DerbyX]

lily lily:

Let's try this one more time, Derby.

You believe abortion is a woman's choice, but not 100%, because you apparently don't agree with late-term abortions - after viability, which is around what, 24 weeks? A little sooner now?

The diffference between you and me is that I believe a fetus is a baby - a real person in its own right, and deserves a chance at life.

You don't.

We're not going to see eye to eye here.

Actually I did. I said I agreed with abortion up to the point where medical science could support the fetus in an incubator.

Thats self-explanatory.

A women is entitled to abort before but late term abortions carry greater risks,a fact that pro-choice groups make avilaible and get called on for pushing abortions.

See the connection?

Now I want you to answer this:

If you believe that laws should be enacted and upheld to prevent choice abotions under the theory of protection of the child then what about laws preventing women from engaging in activitied dangerous to a fetus?

[Wally_Sconce]

forget the laws, I think you are a slimeball for advocating a woman's right to endanger their baby by taking drugs.

[Wally_Sconce]

a doctors ability determines the definition of life? I thought it should be a doctors responsibility to give it his hest shot at preserving life, not killing it because he doesn't know how to run an incubator.

[DerbyX]

lily lily:

You're not as clear as you think. How do you know the fetus would be viable? Is it given a chance... kept in an incubator and given care until it dies on its own? Or is it just left to die or killed without any care whatsoever? At what age is a baby viable now? I've heard 24 weeks, but maybe it's 23. Or 22 and 4 days.

In other words - there's no clear cut-off.

$1:

If you believe that laws should be enacted and upheld to prevent choice abotions under the theory of protection of the child then what about laws preventing women from engaging in activitied dangerous to a fetus?

Such as? I know I've already asked this, but you didn't really answer.

In other words when medical science can support it. My ppint is made.

You keep refusing to answer my question because you know you can't support abortion laws without subsequent social laws affecting women.

Lets just end this by both agreeing I am right and that women deserve the right to choose whathappens to their bodies.

[Wally_Sconce]

there is one clear cut off. before life can be detected.

even as early as 4 weeks, the babies heart beat can be detected. its a life, not a fetus.

If you ever go to wife and say " Congratulations, I hear you are having a fetus" I'll kick your liberal butt so hard you wont be able to poop for a weak.

[Wally_Sconce]

then technical prowess of incubator designers get to determine when life has started? thats absurd and assinine.

[Wally_Sconce]

what are you right about, Derby? that women should have the right to kill their babies anyway they see fit, abortion clinic or drug abuse, it does not matter,eh? because your holy than thou attitude on 'social laws' states that it is wrong to take a stand on this kind of stuff? thats absurd and assinine.

[Wally_Sconce]

lily lily:

And when can medical science support it, Derby? Will the aborted fetus be placed in an incubator just in case?

in the words of morgantaller " all 12 peices ..."