Pro lifers show no mercy

Equal, I'd say.

More importantly, why should YOU be able to decide that for that baby?

I cant decide. Only the woman involved can.

But as for 'equal,' if that's the case, why do most pro-lifers and laws say that abortion is 'ok' if the mother's been raped or her life is in danger? Sounds like all of a sudden, the fetus's rights and life are not the same.

Why is that?
 
And if the fetus's rights dont supersede the woman's, then stop insisting the fetus is more important than the woman's choices.

you keep dodging.....saying the unborn's right to life does not supersede the mother's right to life does not equal saying the unborn's right to life does not supersede any of the other rights the mother might have.....a child's life is obviously more important than any woman's choice.....if you don't see that then you are beyond pity......
 
But an unborn, potential life...is it more important than a woman's life?

look.....you are doing nothing but demonstrating stupidity.....we've given you "to save the life of the mother".....we've even given you "rape and incest"......what about the other 49,900,000 dead children who had nothing to do with saving lives or rape or incest?......why do you insist on killing them?......
 
you keep dodging.....saying the unborn's right to life does not supersede the mother's right to life does not equal saying the unborn's right to life does not supersede any of the other rights the mother might have.....a child's life is obviously more important than any woman's choice.....if you don't see that then you are beyond pity......


Still cant answer I see: Why does the right to life of the fetus not supersede the woman's in cases or rape or when the woman's life is in danger?

It's not that hard a question, is it? And yet, it is one that most pro-lifers support.
 
look.....you are doing nothing but demonstrating stupidity.....we've given you "to save the life of the mother".....we've even given you "rape and incest"......what about the other 49,900,000 dead children who had nothing to do with saving lives or rape or incest?......

"Given" it? Why is that? Why does your 'side' support that instead of just letting the woman die or suffer thru months of Hell carrying the spawn of violence and pain?
 
Still cant answer I see: Why does the right to life of the fetus not supersede the woman's in cases or rape or when the woman's life is in danger?

It's not that hard a question, is it? And yet, it is one that most pro-lifers support.

I have....I will agree to choice in the instance of rape and incest....now tell me.....why is your lust for death so insatiable that you have to kill them all when only a tiny percentage have anything to do with risk to life or rape or incest?.....
 
"Given" it? Why is that? Why does your 'side' support that instead of just letting the woman die or suffer thru months of Hell carrying the spawn of violence and pain?

its a negotiation.....hopefully giving in to your blood lust in those instances will allow us to save the other 99%........
 
I have....I will agree to choice in the instance of rape and incest....now tell me.....why is your lust for death so insatiable that you have to kill them all when only a tiny percentage have anything to do with risk to life or rape or incest?.....

You agree, but "WHY?" That is the question. Why is the fetus's right to life less important than the woman's in those cases? Or not even the woman's right to life in the case of rape or incest?


Can you answer that question?
 
its a negotiation.....hopefully giving in to your blood lust in those instances will allow us to save the other 99%........

A negotiation based on what premise? (And it's not a negotiation since it's legal without that pretty much everywhere.)

But it is the general concession of your people. WHY?




Edit: Heh, bored. Reading up on everyone else's election results until ours are in. Nada here yet.
 
You agree, but "WHY?" That is the question. Why is the fetus's right to life less important than the woman's in those cases? Or not even the woman's right to life in the case of rape or incest?


Can you answer that question?

the way you phrase it, no.....the fact she was raped, even by her father, does not create a risk to her life by carrying the child to term versus having an abortion....and as I have already stated balancing the life of one against the life of the other in health matters creates an entirely different set of considerations......what other factors are involved?.....does the mother have a terminal illness that will take her life anyway?......is she on death row awaiting execution?......is she a liberal?.......
 
the way you phrase it, no.....the fact she was raped, even by her father, does not create a risk to her life by carrying the child to term versus having an abortion....and as I have already stated balancing the life of one against the life of the other in health matters creates an entirely different set of considerations......what other factors are involved?.....does the mother have a terminal illness that will take her life anyway?......is she on death row awaiting execution?......is she a liberal?.......

We're talking about the law here and a stance that 'your people' have basically supported. Why?

You just bobbed and weaved all over. Those things you wrote DO NOT factor into the basic stance of the pro-lifers. A broad general stance is that abortion is ok (not desirable...no one thinks that on either side) in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger.

WHY?

(btw I know it's judgemental on my part but I believe it is just evil of you to insist that a woman victim of rape or incest SHOULD have to carry to term. And you call me bloodthirsty? You wish to destroy a woman. That's just as likely as her dying in childbirth or having lifelong health issues...which may ALSO happen if forced to carry to term. I find that appalling so dont bother putting yourself up on some moral pedestal.)
 
Last edited:
because it effects so very few people......we're willing to let you kill a few hundred thousand in order to save tens of millions.....

How few? Less than the number of women that die in childbirth?

Nope.

Why value them less in those cases? Why is it ok to sacrifice them then? Would you kill a born baby of a rape victim?
 
You agree, but "WHY?" That is the question. Why is the fetus's right to life less important than the woman's in those cases? Or not even the woman's right to life in the case of rape or incest?


Can you answer that question?

You are being deliberately obtuse. It is called compromise. I will sadly give up my ZERO tolerance for abortion in the 1% of case that have you most concerned if it saves the lives of 99% of infants

It would appear that we are offering compromise. You know where both sides don't get everything they want. Obama talks about it all the time. You should hear him
 
Back
Top