ABORTION.......

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:

If you were the product of rape, and the rape had been prevented....you would be dead today.

you are wording this question incorrectly. You would not be dead....if you were never living. Other wise,people who don't have sex, would be murderers.

Yes I know thunder, it was a response to a similarly ridiculous statement by real life, who says his abortion survivor would be dead today if the abortion had succeeded.

Eorl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:

If you were the product of rape, and the rape had been prevented....you would be dead today.

you are wording this question incorrectly. You would not be dead....if you were never living. Other wise,people who don't have sex, would be murderers.

Yes I know thunder, it was a response to a similarly ridiculous statement by real life, who says his abortion survivor would be dead today if the abortion had succeeded.

Your comparison is ludicrous, Eorl.

If an egg and sperm never join together, there is no living being created. No pro-life people are suggesting that an unfertilized egg, or a sperm cell are living human beings.

Gianna Jensen was growing in the womb when a saline abortion was attempted. The chemical solution did not cause a complete abortion and she is alive still today.

Now perhaps you can address the question squarely (though I doubt it):

Would you have preferred that the saline abortion that was attempted had been successful in exterminating Gianna Jensen?

Actually we don't even have to enjoy life, we just have to live.

If you want these children dead, then show that death is good; recommend it to others - it's the only way.

May I presume that like some christians here.... you are in favour of murdering women who abort foetuses? ( who may or may NOT eventually become "children" )

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:

If you were the product of rape, and the rape had been prevented....you would be dead today.

you are wording this question incorrectly. You would not be dead....if you were never living. Other wise,people who don't have sex, would be murderers.

Yes I know thunder, it was a response to a similarly ridiculous statement by real life, who says his abortion survivor would be dead today if the abortion had succeeded.

Your comparison is ludicrous, Eorl.

If an egg and sperm never join together, there is no living being created. No pro-life people are suggesting that an unfertilized egg, or a sperm cell are living human beings.

Gianna Jensen was growing in the womb when a saline abortion was attempted. The chemical solution did not cause a complete abortion and she is alive still today.

Now perhaps you can address the question squarely (though I doubt it):

Would you have preferred that the saline abortion that was attempted had been successful in exterminating Gianna Jensen?

Of course not real life. You seem to forget (often) that I'm not in favour of abortion.

As for Gianna, without all the facts of this case (such as why it was attempted so late and why it failed) I'm not in a position to judge it (unlike you it seems).

The comparison is valid in the sense that she would not know if she had never been born....may I remind you (again) of the 50% of ALL foetuses who do not make it to birth ... none of them seem to be complaining, and nor would have the potential person who eventually became Gianna if the abortion had been successful.

You argue that no-one says a sperm is alive...why not? It all comes down to where YOU decide to draw the line for everybody else.

oh sorry Intrepid, they like to call it "capital punishment"

Well, the abortion doctor, yes. I say that because odds are he's done more than one and thus, in my opinion, is committing mass murder.

The woman? Hmmm. For the first abortion, at the very least she should be indicted for conspiracy to commit murder.

More than one abortion, yes. The death penalty. I think anyone that commits mass, serial, multiple murders should get the death penalty.

[Why not? Well, like a lot of things in this subject that you do not seem to grasp, this has a simple medical answer.

A sperm does not have the required number of chromosomes to be considered a living human being.

simplistic christian rhetoric there dude.

real life wrote:

[Why not? Well, like a lot of things in this subject that you do not seem to grasp, this has a simple medical answer.

A sperm does not have the required number of chromosomes to be considered a living human being.

I pulled a hair out of my head this morning...it had the right DNA for your definition...in fact it has the potential of becoming a complete human being through cloning....did I commit murder?

It was not capable of swimming or reacting to stimuli like a sperm cell can.

BTW there is a big difference between what I grasp and what I accept as true.

Don't presume to know what I grasp.