90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1061

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

Where in that statement do I imply anything except that arguing religion is a waste of time? You are getting dumber each time you post.[/quote]

Do you actually think that lying and trying to confuse the point is going to help you look good?

I was talking about the implication you made about helping your brother with his house. Now I know you’re menory is poor but you must be able to remember that.

Here it is again for you little fella:

[quote]
BrianHanson wrote:
My brother just read this thread and asked me if I had so much spare time maybe I could drive down to his house and help with building his in-law suite.[/quote]

And if you recall you posted this as you were attempting to get out of yet another message board ass kicking.

We all understand that we’re not dealing with a towering intellect when speaking with you. But this is lame even for you B r i a n.

1062

ZEB,

You half-wit, the post indicates that my brother, after reading the thread is saying that if I truly have so much time to waste, I should help him build the mother in law suite. the point is made to “wasting time” I admit that I “get the point”, and decide to post on other threads. Please tell me you are not so fucking dumb that you didn’t understand that. ZEB, back away from the computer and get some fresh air, you’re beginning to worry me.

1063

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Kneedragger,

it is solely a matter of what each person believes constitutes a human being (pre-birth that is).[/quote]

And in the 1800’s they said "It solely a matter of what each person thinks about owning a slave. It’s not right for everyone.

Hypocrite B r i a n pokes his head in the door. Got it, you are a Catholic…sort of.

Back to the 1800’s. “I can see why enslaving a black is not the same thing as enslaving a white human being.”

Pure rationalization.

[quote] I would say that in its early stages it doesn’t meet the pre-requisistes for being called a human being.
[/quote]

Say’s B r i a n the message board liberal know it all. Yet, those who actually matter cannot determine if it is life or not. But you are all for killing it regardless.

Your poor logic is only exceeded by your hypocrisy.

1064

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Is there a reason they can’t have a name though?[/quote]

The pseudo-Socratic method thing is not working out for you, dude. Please make your point or stop throwing this thread off track.

I have asked, what, this is either the fourth or fifth time now, I’m losing count: When does a conceived human become a human being? Have you got an answer for this, or are you going to continue with the Wayne’s World impression?

I am STILL waiting on an answer to this simple question from someone. Please. What is so hard about this? If you can’t answer this simple, fundamental question, wouldn’t it be a pretty good idea to recuse yourselves from any further discussions of abortion until you can? [/quote]

Going to save us some time. If you really want an answer to that question just google it. You will find some some bad answers and maybe some “decent” ones that you’ll end up disagreeing with anyway. I might have a similar question for you but I already know the answer and will disagree.[/quote]

1065

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

You half-wit,[/quote]

Say’s the man who has never won a point in any of the debates that he’s engaged in. You’re a winner B r i a n. LOL

I was commenting on the second part did I lose you there little fella?

Here you go idiot one more time:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
My brother just read this thread and asked me if I had so much spare time maybe I could drive down to his house and help with building his in-law suite.[/quote]

He’s saying that it’s a waste of time and since you have so much time to waste you can help him build his house.

So you had half of it correct, but refuse to admit the implication of helping him build the house. Once again that makes you disingenuous. But we all know you’ll pretty much say anything as long as you think you get to win.

Eh…but what do I expect from a hypocrite like you?

Just to continue to slap you around the board :slight_smile:

Hey man at least you’re good for something!

1066

So if abortion were made illegal once again, what should the penalty be for the crime? Should only the mother and abortionist be liable?

Surely, if abortion is murder, the perpetrators deserve life in prison?

1067

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Like not being able to determine gender?[/quote]

Wow…good point…because it isn’t human until gender differentiation?

What about hermaphrodites?[/quote]

This is not really too far out of character for him. I’m not joking.

He does seem to be trying harder than usual to make as little sense as possible right now, I will say. [/quote]

He’s Pittbull’s cousin.

1068

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Kneedragger,

it is solely a matter of what each person believes constitutes a human being (pre-birth that is).[/quote]

And in the 1800’s they said "It solely a matter of what each person thinks about owning a slave. It’s not right for everyone.

Hypocrite B r i a n pokes his head in the door. Got it, you are a Catholic…sort of.

Back to the 1800’s. “I can see why enslaving a black is not the same thing as enslaving a white human being.”

Pure rationalization.

[quote] I would say that in its early stages it doesn’t meet the pre-requisistes for being called a human being.
[/quote]

Say’s B r i a n the message board liberal know it all. Yet, those who actually matter cannot determine if it is life or not. But you are all for killing it regardless.

Your poor logic is only exceeded by your hypocrisy.[/quote]

Congratulations on your dumbest post of disjointed thoughts yet.
I did not mention the 1800’s (but I will), and of course your analogy as usual, is ridiculous, unless you believe that there is some sort of developmental difference between blacks and whites, I happen to think we are all equal…
As far as “life” of course it is life, so are lots of things, but that doesn’t mean it is to be held in the same regard as a viable human being, life and human being aren’t always the same (all human beings are alive but not every life is a human being).
I have never practiced nor participated in an abortion, how am I a hypocrite again? the Catholic Church allowed early abortions until 1869 (Pope Gregory XIV in 1591 determined that 16.5 weeks was the cut-off) maybe I am supporting old school Catholicism, minus the inquisition and crusades of course

edit: I forgot about the house building thing you wrote. Seriously give that up, if you find anyone else that incapable of reading for content I will be very shocked (and disappointed in our schools). You are ridiculous, and apparently not very smart.

1069

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So if abortion were made illegal once again, what should the penalty be for the crime? Should only the mother and abortionist be liable?

Surely, if abortion is murder, the perpetrators deserve life in prison?[/quote]

Unless they want to back down on their stance for it being human then I don’t see any alternative than life in prison that wouldn’t devalue their previous arguments. Anything less is like saying “Yes its a human like you and me but…”

1070

I will try again Brian. Now please be honest and when there is no answer which you like, well there is a reason for that.

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Kneedragger,

it is solely a matter of what each person believes constitutes a human being[/quote] I have to disagree with this. Science proves that human beings are human beings at the very moment of conception. Many pro-death people do not understand the science which proves the case for life. Most people if not all people do not like to be wrong. A few upstanding people can look honestly at the facts in front of them and realize they are mistaken. Trust me, the feeling is awesome when it clicks in your brain and you understand science better and there is no more murky water to wade through. [quote](pre-birth that is), the science doesn’t distinguish human/non-human[/quote] [i]WHY WOULD SCIENCE NOT DISTINGUISH A DIFFERENCE? Could it be that the unborn are ALWAYS human?[/u] [quote]but it does distinguish viable/non-viable.[/quote] I ask for science or even a source and I have received nothing. [quote]Again, I am not in support of abortion on a personal level,[/quote] If you support the choice of a woman slaughtering her child then I am sorry but you are in fact pro-[i]DEATH[/i] and in support of abortion on a personal level. You are personally in favor of abortion. As you are a man, you cannot physically have an abortion anyway. I am guessing what you mean is that you wouldnâ??t want your wife to have an abortion if she were to become pregnant. However, since you believe that women should have the right to choose for themselves, even then you are relinquishing the right to say yes or no to the life of your own child. Again, I say you ARE personally in favor of abortion. [quote]though I very clearly see why people choose it,[/quote] Just because you think you understand why, that will never be an excuse. I can understand motives to murder, but that does not excuse the murder. [quote]aborting a non-viable fetus at 6 weeks, or taking the morning after pill and getting rid of a zygote is not the same thing as killing an actual living person,[/quote] Where is the science to back your claim? [quote]additionally the difference between abortion at 6 weeks and abortion at 30 weeks (where the fetus would very well survive outside the womb) is quite substantial as well.[/quote] Actually you are mistaken. Please tell me which fetus, or person has survived at thirty weeks with NO ‘support from the outside?’ Doctors and nurses have helped children survive, yes, but the point is they were unable to survive on their own. Every child in the world needs support! Let us go one step farther. Can a child who has been born, survive on their own? Can they find food and love and all the care they need? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Think about that, the mother provides what the baby needs because that is the way nature intended it. If the mother is unable, medicine will intervene to help. [quote]Science will probably look at a zygote and determine that it is a very immature human[/quote] There is no PROBABLY, it already is, because science proves the zygote has the exact same traits as an adult. They are immature and less developed than an adult, but so is a CHILD who is not mature and fully grown. Just like the kids in your AVI. They are less mature and have not fully developed but they still have the exact same characteristics they will have as adults. Remember my acronym of Size, Level of development, Environment and Degree of dependency? We are all in different stages as we go through life. The unborn have the EXACT SAME characteristics as they grow and mature. [quote](not human in total but with the possibility of becoming a viable human if given the necessary resources)[/quote] Thank you, I was trying to help you understand this point. However, they are always human, nothing less and nothing more. [quote]so maybe we should try to split hairs even more and say it is Human (the tissue is human, the cellular structure is human, 26 chromosomes[/quote] 46 chromosomes in a human, whether they are adults or just past the moment of conception. Humans have 46 chromosomes at all stages of life. [quote]etc) but does that make it a human being, I would say that in its early stages it doesn’t meet the pre-requisistes for being called a human being.[/quote] What then are the “prerequisites” for being human? How can you apply the adjective of human to something but then be claiming it actually is not human? Thatâ??s illogical and contradictory.

Brian I think you are nearing understanding the points I am trying to make. As I have said previously I mean this in the most sincere way possible, please meet a disabled child and tell me what makes them less human than you or I.

1071

How about we worry about that, after Roe v Wade is repealed. However I believe America would take a stance similar to the one in Chile. If a woman has an abortion, she goes to jail for life. The doctor who performed the procedure loses his credential degree and jail/fine.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So if abortion were made illegal once again, what should the penalty be for the crime? Should only the mother and abortionist be liable?

Surely, if abortion is murder, the perpetrators deserve life in prison?[/quote]

1072

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How about we worry about that, after Roe v Wade is repealed. However I believe America would take a stance similar to the one in Chile. If a woman has an abortion, she goes to jail for life. The doctor who performed the procedure loses his credential degree and jail/fine.
[/quote]

Nah, if we’re going to reform a law, we must look at all aspects and completely think it through.

According to wikipedia, the penalty for having an abortion is 3-5 years.

Now do you want US laws to align with Chile’s as you said earlier, or would you want it be a life sentence?

1073

Sure does sound like you are placing thoughts in my mind and words from mouth to argue against. How about you actually address the points I DO make. If you were to refute those, then we will worry about another thread of the topic. Your choice of course. However science does nothing but confirm my case of life.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So if abortion were made illegal once again, what should the penalty be for the crime? Should only the mother and abortionist be liable?

Surely, if abortion is murder, the perpetrators deserve life in prison?[/quote]

Unless they want to back down on their stance for it being human then I don’t see any alternative than life in prison that wouldn’t devalue their previous arguments. Anything less is like saying “Yes its a human like you and me but…”[/quote]

1074


Dear Obama, womanhood is not a â??defectâ?? to be fixed by the government
by Denise J. Hunnell, MD Mon Jun 11, 2012

June 11, 2012 (HLIAmerica.org) - One of President Obama’s latest re-election commercials entitled “Dreams of our Daughters” offers both misleading information and a demeaning characterization of women. The spot shows actors portraying a mother and two daughters with soothing music in the background. The mother’s soft voice narrates the ad and speaks of the ambitious goals of her six-year-old and ten-year-old daughters. One wants to be a “dolphin doctor” and one wants to be a military fighter pilot. She then laments how some want to take away the rights of women to obtain birth control. That is why she is going to vote for President Obama. Unless her daughters have access to birth control, they will never reach their dreams.

First of all, no one is trying to take away access to birth control. There is absolutely no effort to restrict the manufacturing, marketing or sales of contraceptives. There is, however, a strong push by both Catholics and Protestants to protect Catholic schools, hospitals, charities and other ministries from being forced to compromise their Catholic identity and principles and pay for contraception. The First Amendment guarantees that no government has the right to define what religious principles can be expressed by religious entities. To suggest that protecting religious liberty is a threat to American women is mendacious and shows a poor understanding of the Constitution.

More offensive, however, is the suggestion that women are somehow inherently defective and cannot succeed unless their feminine nature is “corrected” with contraception. This commercial claims that two young girls with lofty career aspirations cannot reach their goals with their fertility intact. It presumes that they will choose to be sexually active at a time when becoming pregnant would derail their professional lives. It paints motherhood as an inferior vocation. And just like President Obama’s other fictional woman, “Julia”, this commercial implies that women must be dependent on the federal government in order to control their fertility.

Contrary to this insulting portrait of womanhood by President Obama is the Catholic view that femininity is not a defect. Fertility is not a disorder. A successful woman does not have to mask her maternal nature and behave more like a man. Women are not slaves to their own carnal desires or to those of men. They are fully capable of self-control and living virtuous lives of chastity. To suggest otherwise belittles the dignity of both men and women and paints a picture of human sexuality that is more akin to animals in the wild than men and women in loving relationships.

The authentic natures of men and women reveal the inherent complementarity created by God. One is not greater than the other. From the beginning, they have been joined in a partnership, not a competition.

[i]God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Gen 1:27)[/i]

In his commencement address to the graduates of Benedictine College, George Weigel asserted:

[i]For the defense of religious freedom in full which you must mount must be both cultural - in the sense of arguments winsomely and persuasively made - and political, in that you must drive the sharp edge of truth into the sometimes hard soil of public policy.[/i]

President Obama may dream that his daughters will live in a world that reduces their femininity to the need to have sex without having children, and that pressures them to be more like men, but that is not my dream for my daughter, or her daughters or her daughters’ daughters. My dream is for a culture of life that respects authentic femininity, supports motherhood, values the family and is based on the truth of natural law.

Therefore, we must proclaim the equal dignity of men and women. We must counter those who repeatedly declare womanhood is a defect. We must correct the lie that the Church is waging a war on women. We must defend the right of the Church to publicly proclaim and live the tenets of the faith. And we must back up our high ideals with action at the ballot box. There can be no support for candidates who reject the complementarity of men and women, the intrinsic dignity of all human persons from conception to natural death or the singular importance of the family in shaping our culture.

Denise Hunnell, MD, is a Fellow of HLI America, an educational initiative of Human Life International. She writes for HLI America’s Truth and Charity Forum, where this article first appeared.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dear-obama-womanhood-is-not-a-defect-to-be-fixed-by-the-government

1075


“Childbearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature.” Tennessee Claflin

1076

First off, please read and then comprehend something, especially after you use a crap site like wiki as an original source. Here is the line for you, which you failed to understand - "The penalty for seeking an abortion is 3-5 years in jail and 541 days to three-years jail time for providing an abortion." - Now understand, the woman SEEKS an abortion, she doesn’t even have to actually go through the procedure but simply SEEKS an abortion, she goes to prison for three to five years. The next line in wiki states “The country’s constitution in article 19-1, states that ‘the law protects the life of those about to be born.’” What does that mean to you? Here is links to their Constitution. Be forewarned, they are in Spanish, but the internet allows for their translation through certain sites - http://web.archive.org/web/20051210035529/http://www.bcn.cl/pags/legislacion/leyes/constitucion_politica.htm - If a woman goes to another country, say America and has an abortion, she goes to jail when she returns to Chile.

In addition, I was in the country for four months and literally talked to the people that lived there, up and down the whole coast if Chile. Most people there consider themselves Catholic. However, every single individual I talked with understands the reasons for the laws and ban, they also support the entire ban on abortions. The reason? Because they understand life begins at the moment of conception. There is legislation trying to strengthen the ban and also allow for abortions. Neither has passed because the ban is still in place and the number of abortions is nearly nil.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How about we worry about that, after Roe v Wade is repealed. However I believe America would take a stance similar to the one in Chile. If a woman has an abortion, she goes to jail for life. The doctor who performed the procedure loses his credential degree and jail/fine.
[/quote]

Nah, if we’re going to reform a law, we must look at all aspects and completely think it through.

According to wikipedia, the penalty for having an abortion is 3-5 years.

Now do you want US laws to align with Chile’s as you said earlier, or would you want it be a life sentence?
[/quote]

1077

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First off, please read and then comprehend something, especially after you use a crap site like wiki as an original source.[/quote]

I’ve addressed this before. When I look at wiki, i check the sources that are cited first before posting. It was linked to a credible source.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

Here is the line for you, which you failed to understand - “[i]The penalty for seeking an abortion is 3-5 years in jail and 541 days to three-years jail time for providing an abortion.” - Now understand, the woman SEEKS an abortion, she doesn’t even have to actually go through the procedure but simply SEEKS an abortion, she goes to prison for three to five years. The next line in wiki states “The country’s constitution in article 19-1, states that ‘the law protects the life of those about to be born.’” What does that mean to you? Here is links to their Constitution. Be forewarned, they are in Spanish, but the internet allows for their translation through certain sites - http://web.archive.org/web/20051210035529/http://www.bcn.cl/pags/legislacion/leyes/constitucion_politica.htm - If a woman goes to another country, say America and has an abortion, she goes to jail when she returns to Chile.[/quote]

Alright I misread.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

In addition, I was in the country for four months and literally talked to the people that lived there, up and down the whole coast if Chile. Most people there consider themselves Catholic. However, every single individual I talked with understands the reasons for the laws and ban, they also support the entire ban on abortions. The reason? Because they understand life begins at the moment of conception. There is legislation trying to strengthen the ban and also allow for abortions. Neither has passed because the ban is still in place and the number of abortions is nearly nil.

[/quote]

From the United Nations website:

"Under the Penal Code, anyone who performs an abortion with the womanâ??s consent is subject to the normal length of short-term imprisonment. If the abortion is performed without the womanâ??s consent, the penalty is the maximum length of short-term imprisonment. A woman inducing her own abortion or consenting to it is subject to the maximum length of short-term imprisonment. Harsher penalties are imposed on physicians. Despite these penalties, few convictions are made for performing abortions because physical proof of abortion, such as traumatic injury to internal organs, is necessary to obtain a conviction.

Since 1988, some attempts have been made to increase the penalties for abortion and make them equal to the penalties for the offences of infanticide and homicide.  To date, these attempts have been unsuccessful."

www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/chiles1.doc

Another source:

While abortion was at one time permitted only in special cases, on September 15, 1989, Chileâ??s military government promulgated Law 18136, declaring all abortions completely prohibited.

Law 18136 states that â??No action may be executed which has as its goal the provocation of an abortion.â??

The argument behind this action was that, given the advances in modern medicine, abortion was no longer needed to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Sections 342-345 of the Chilean Penal Code lay out the punishments for conducting an abortion:

â??Article 342. He who maliciously causes an abortion will be punished:

With the penalty of the minimum length of long-term imprisonment is he exercises violence on the pregnant woman.
With the penalty of the minimum length of long-term imprisonment if, although he does not exercise violence, he operates without the consent of the woman.
With the penalty of the normal length of short-term imprisonment if the woman consents.
Article 343. He who through violence causes an abortion, even though he has not had the intention to cause it, will be punished with the minimum to medium length of short-term imprisonment, provided that the state of pregnancy is evident or has been previously stated to the instigator.

Article 344. The woman who causes an abortion or consents that another person causes it will be punished with the maximum length of short-term imprisonment.

Article 345. The doctor who, abusing his office, causes an abortion or cooperates with it, will receive the respective penalties established in Article 342, increased by one grade.â??

While abortion is not allowed, Resolution 2326, promulgated December 9, 2000, gives women the right to choose to undergo sterilization. Prior to this resolution, women needed to have the permission of their husbands in order to go through with the procedure.

Resolution 2326 states that â??the decision to undergo to sterilization is personal and emanates from the free will expressed by the patient.â??

Before proceeding with sterilization, the medical professional should give consultation regarding sexual and reproductive health to the patient, with complete information about alternative anticonceptive methods and about the irreversibility of the procedure, including the possible complications. Prior to the procedure the patient should sign and document her decision, noting the circumstances of having decided freely and having received all information about the procedureâ??s irreversibility and about alternative anticonceptive methods.

http://www.impowr.org/content/current-legal-framework-family-planning-reproductive-and-maternal-health-chile

So basically if a woman consents to having an abortion she will receive the maximum length of a short term sentence. I’m guessing that’s much shorter than life impirsonment

1078

Wikipedia will never be considered a credible source in any academic circle or even in a credible paper, simply because the pages can be changed by anyone with an email. You can never even use the site the site in college, on a paper where you receive a grade. I try to be above the normal population, here and in real life with my research. Many people on this T-Nation do the same exact thing. End of the story, wiki is easy and a lazy way out and not even close to credible. Please step above the easy route.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Alright I misread.[/quote] You misread what you wanted to. Please read, understand, and comprehend this discussion, otherwise it would be pointless.

Then you quote a UN website.

[quote]From the United Nations website:

"Under the Penal Code, anyone who performs an abortion with the woman�¢??s consent is subject to the normal length of short-term imprisonment. If the abortion is performed without the woman�¢??s consent, the penalty is the maximum length of short-term imprisonment. A woman inducing her own abortion or consenting to it is subject to the maximum length of short-term imprisonment. Harsher penalties are imposed on physicians. Despite these penalties, few convictions are made for performing abortions because physical proof of abortion, such as traumatic injury to internal organs, is necessary to obtain a conviction.

Since 1988, some attempts have been made to increase the penalties for abortion and make them equal to the penalties for the offences of infanticide and homicide.  To date, these attempts have been unsuccessful."[/quote] The UN will never take control over another country and tell them what they can and can not do with themselves. They can never tell Chile to allow for abortion,  that would be against their own laws. Similar to our Constitution, you can never just make another person do what you want. The laws are in place to protect everyone. Hypocritical as they are when they do [b]NOT[/b] protect the unborn.

[quote]www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/chiles1.doc

Another source:

While abortion was at one time permitted only in special cases, on September 15, 1989, Chile�¢??s military government promulgated Law 18136, declaring all abortions completely prohibited.

Law 18136 states that �¢??No action may be executed which has as its goal the provocation of an abortion.�¢??

The argument behind this action was that, given the advances in modern medicine, abortion was no longer needed to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Sections 342-345 of the Chilean Penal Code lay out the punishments for conducting an abortion:

�¢??Article 342. He who maliciously causes an abortion will be punished:

With the penalty of the minimum length of long-term imprisonment is he exercises violence on the pregnant woman.
With the penalty of the minimum length of long-term imprisonment if, although he does not exercise violence, he operates without the consent of the woman.
With the penalty of the normal length of short-term imprisonment if the woman consents.
Article 343. He who through violence causes an abortion, even though he has not had the intention to cause it, will be punished with the minimum to medium length of short-term imprisonment, provided that the state of pregnancy is evident or has been previously stated to the instigator.

Article 344. The woman who causes an abortion or consents that another person causes it will be punished with the maximum length of short-term imprisonment.

Article 345. The doctor who, abusing his office, causes an abortion or cooperates with it, will receive the respective penalties established in Article 342, increased by one grade.�¢??

While abortion is not allowed, Resolution 2326, promulgated December 9, 2000, gives women the right to choose to undergo sterilization. Prior to this resolution, women needed to have the permission of their husbands in order to go through with the procedure.

Resolution 2326 states that �¢??the decision to undergo to sterilization is personal and emanates from the free will expressed by the patient.�¢??

Before proceeding with sterilization, the medical professional should give consultation regarding sexual and reproductive health to the patient, with complete information about alternative anticonceptive methods and about the irreversibility of the procedure, including the possible complications. Prior to the procedure the patient should sign and document her decision, noting the circumstances of having decided freely and having received all information about the procedure�¢??s irreversibility and about alternative anticonceptive methods.

http://www.impowr.org/content/current-legal-framework-family-planning-reproductive-and-maternal-health-chile [/quote] Then you try to explain the law to me jajaja!

[quote]So basically if a woman consents to having an abortion she will receive the maximum length of a short term sentence. I’m guessing that’s much shorter than life impirsonment [/quote] There is no short term sentence. I told you the woman will go to prison if she were to have an abortion, anywhere in the world. Why are you telling me something I already knew? Because that confirms that facts? Not sure. shrug

You are also trying to talk about something other than a point I have brought up since the beginning of this thread, prove to me using science that the unborn are in fact not distinct, whole, and alive humans from the very moment of conception.

OR

We can go the route of Cortes - When does a conceived human become human?
I will let Cortes address that point if you respond to his comment.

1079

Please listen now.

edit The site will stay up so anyone can listen, at anytime they would like.

1080

  1. I’m not writing a paper. If you don’t accept it, that’s up to you

  2. I asked you on the previous page how long a sentence should a woman receive for having an abortion if it were made illegal. you replied:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

However I believe America would take a stance similar to the one in Chile. If a woman has an abortion, she goes to jail for life. The doctor who performed the procedure loses his credential degree and jail/fine. [/quote]

I then explained that Chile’s laws will only imprison women for a short sentence (not sure how long that it is but I would surprised if its longer than 5 years) not life imprisonment.

Now I’m asking you to clarify your position. If abortions were made illegal in the US, would you want the women having abortions to serve a sentence in line with what’s outlined in Chile’s law (lets say 5 years) or do you think they deserve life in prison? Do you see how you made a conflicting statement in what I quoted?