Political Crooks

What does that have to do with the speaker of the house backdooring a bill with her own agenda?

What does your comment have to do with the OP's meme? Answer the question.

3sq8of.jpg (click to show)

This street goes both ways

No, it does not. It has nothing to do with abortion.

"News flash: Women will still need reproductive healthcare during this crisis"

Abortion isn't health care and if you believe that, I feel sorry for you.

"Oh yeah: because Republicans rabidly oppose it out of partisanship"

We oppose the killing of unborn children, yes. We're fit to be tied and flogged.

It’s healthcare whether you like it or not: particularly when the mother’s life is at risk

Here, let me fix that for ya'....."particularly when the mother’s *lifestyle* is at risk"

No, it is not. We can go back and forth all day long on this and we'll get nowhere. Only about 1% of all abortions are performed due to the mother's or the child's health risk. So spare me that whole "the mother will die!" argument, because it doesn't account for much. The funding for abortions are just that... funding for killing your child. If you want to pretend biology is wrong then be my guest, but quit bitching to those who know better and fight for a child's right to life.

I hate to break it to you but invoking “biology” does not answer the complex moral questions here.

Can you think of any other situations in which taking a human life is legal?

When confronted with such situations: Do we consult a science textbook, or something else?

"Can you think of any other situations in which taking a human life is legal?"

I'm assuming you're referring to capital punishment? If so, the fact you compare a grown adult who committed murder or some other horrible crime to that of an unborn innocent child is just sad.

And you think biology has nothing to do with the abortion argument? It's you pro baby killers who keep claiming the child in the womb isn't a child until it's out of its mother. Don't start changing the argument just because you can't make the argument. Biology has a lot to do with it.

Capital punishment, self-defense, warfare, justified police homicides, euthanasia, suicide: just to name the first few situations that come to mind.

"Biology" cannot offer any answers in those situations since they involve fully-grown human beings.

Indeed. Like many others who have considered the abortion question, I don't agree that a fetus is a human being: not yet. It has the *potential* to become a person when it is born: or, at the earliest, at the point of fetal "viability" at approximately the third trimester. Until then a fetus depends entirely upon the mother and her willingness to devote her womb to its care.

Just because the fetus's status as a human being is debatable (unlike the above situations) doesn't mean that's the only question involved here. The mother has rights in this situation recognized under the Constitution and continuously reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in abortion-related decisions from the past 45+ years.

How is it health care when woman has been giving birth since the begining of himanity? What changed? Go ahead, tell me what changed? Oh also, did you researched who is making tons of money out of abortions? Everything is about money.

Offering screenings and preventive options and education services is healthcare..abortion is just killing.

Sneaking abortion funding into a coronavirus bill would be the equivalent of Trump sneaking border wall funding into a defense bill. Trump has tried to use defense funds for the wall, but he has been pretty open about it. This just makes Pelosi look even worse. Hopefully, her constituents will vote her out in favor of someone competent.

Killing a baby isn't health care.

Are you serious? You're actually going with that reply huh?

...just keep telling yourself what ever helps.

Octavia_Melody

How does the issue of viability change the fact that it's still a baby ? You went from arguing it's not a baby to saying well it wouldn't survive

"Just because the fetus's status as a human being is debatable (unlike the above situations) doesn't mean that's the only question involved here. The mother has rights in this situation recognized under the Constitution and continuously reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in abortion-related decisions from the past 45+ years."

Well, isn't that special... F**k the child's life, right? I mean, the mother got pregnant cause two people couldn't keep it in their pants, but the child... eh, f**k him.

Unfortunately that pretty much sums up the argument

"Well, isn't that special... F**k the child's life, right? I mean, the mother got pregnant cause two people couldn't keep it in their pants, but the child... eh, f**k him."

The U.S. Supreme Court may not have heard the anti-abortion argument put this way before, so there's still hope

Man made laws should not supersede God's laws. Just because mean says it isn't a human life doesn't mean it isn't. There are laws that give special privileges to the mentally ill, but it doesn't mean they aren't suddenly mentally stable. Calling a human life a fetus doesn't mean it isn't suddenly just a fetus with no life.

Start aborting animal "fetuses" and let's see how far you get without some baby killing, animal rights activist spitting in your face.

Let’s do the cat in the box experiment. if you put a box around your gfs or wife’s mid half, she will never ever, be pregnant. Don’t need worry, this experiment will be safer then the original. This pussy is doing just fine lol jk horrible pun

Everything elts is irrelevant until brith and being seen existing matter.