We're a pro-choice nation

Earl said:
It’s not an unborn rock or tree, Marty.

It’s an unborn child, a child who has not been born.

Here’s a term that even you should understand, Marty…Murderer.
Click to expand...

Nor an unborn ignoramus. Again, without a shared understanding of what the words mean, for which there are dictionaries, there is no discussion, no making of any debate argument.
 
martin said:
Nor an unborn ignoramus. Again, without a shared understanding of what the words mean, for which there are dictionaries, there is no discussion, no making of any debate argument.
Click to expand...

I agree, Marty, you have no valid discussion and are not making any debate argument.

See the definition of “murderer” in your dictionary., Marty.

“Kill” is listed as a synonym with murder, Marty.

The unborn child is alive and abortion “kills” the unborn child.

Now that I have proven that abortion results in a dead (killed or murdered) child, give it up, Marty.
 
Last edited:
Not fundamentally different from killing a child who won’t do his homework or forgot to make his bed, in your view. Why you are on the imbecilic side of this forum.
 
martin said:
Like killing a child who won’t do his homework or forgot to make his bed, in your view. Why you are on the imbecilic side of this forum.
Click to expand...

No, Marty, nothing like that.

Crushing the head of an unborn child who is alive, Marty.

Anyone who can’t or won’t see that as killing (murder) is an imbecile, Marty.

Nothing personal, Marty, you have friends on this forum who are also imbeciles.
 
Earl said:
No, Marty, nothing like that.

Crushing the head of an unborn child who is alive, Marty.

Anyone who can’t or won’t see that is an imbecile, Marty.
Click to expand...

So how is crushing the head of a naughty seven year old that different.
 
Marty, do you set cats on fire?

Asking for a friend.

You just refuted your own argument, Marty.

You conflated the crushing of the head of a naughty seven year old with crushing the head of an unborn child, admitting that they both are alive…before being killed.

You can’t kill an unborn child unless it is alive.

Congrats, Marty.
 
Last edited:
Earl said:
Marty, do you set cats on fire?

Asking for a friend.

You just refuted your own argument, Marty.

You conflated the crushing of the head of a naughty seven year old with crushing the head of an unborn child, admitting that they both are alive…before being killed.

You can’t kill an unborn child unless it is alive.

Congrats, Marty.
Click to expand...

Not my admission a pointing out of the argument you echo that there is no fundamental difference between an embryo and a seven year old.
 
martin said:
Not my admission a pointing out of the argument you echo that there is no fundamental difference between an embryo and a seven year old.
Click to expand...

Wrong, Marty, you made the post about a seven year old, I responded that the seven year old and the unborn child are both alive.

You negated your own argument. You admitted they are both alive by conflating the two,.

Congrats, Marty.

Again, you can’t kill an unborn child unless if it is alive.

You have to admit…you are a novice at this…Marty.
 
Last edited:
martin said:
A pregnant woman is not yet a "mother" and "life" at inception is not yet a "child". This misuse of language in order to make an argument undoes the argument at the outset.
Click to expand...

That is thwe words of someone who ignores the science and will say anything to allow a mother to kill her child
 
martin said:
The sentence pointed out the word “life” does not define as the word “child”. You need to know language, Earl, before you can join in a debate forum without coming off as a nitwit.
Click to expand...

Abortion no child. No abortion a child is born. So abortion kills the child
 
martin said:
The sentence pointed out the word “life” does not define as the word “child”. You need to know language, Earl, before you can join in a debate forum without coming off as a nitwit.
Click to expand...

Earl is a nitwit. But at least in his second question he had the fetus "developing" rather than "devolving."

Maybe there is some improvement.
 
Earl said:
Wrong, Marty, you made the post about a seven year old, I responded that the seven year old and the unborn child are both alive.

You negated your own argument. You admitted they are both alive by conflating the two,.

Congrats, Marty.

Again, you can’t kill an unborn child unless if it is alive.

You have to admit…you are a novice at this…Marty.
Click to expand...

There is no "unborn" child...and there will not be one until it IS born.

And you are the nitwit.
 
ptif219 said:
So you can't deny my truth
Click to expand...

My comment did not have to do with denial or confirmation.

It had to do with the fact that your response was laughable.

I thought I made that clear by suggesting your comment "looks as though it were written by a not especially intelligent five year old", but apparently you have a problem with clarity whether it is making your comments clear...or understanding the clarity of other people's remarks.
 
Frank Apisa said:
A scan of the woman's abdomen often shows NOTHING...because the clump of cells are too small to detect.
Click to expand...

science is not your friend......especially when you lie about it......
Month 3 – Week 10-14
The limbs, as well as the hands, feet, fingers, and toes, become well developed. The fingernails and toenails begin to form. The external ears and teeth begin their development as well. Though reproductive organs haven begun to form, they can’t yet be determined on an ultrasound or sonogram. By the end of the 3rd month, your baby is fully formed (with all organs and extremities present), he or she weighs about an ounce and is 4 inches long
Click to expand...
https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/week-by-week/baby-development-month-by-month/

Ultrasound-Scan.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top