They won't even name what they're defending

DEFEND THE CORRECT CHOICE,
which is to culminate the pregnancy in the birth of a loving beautiful human baby, every time.

One cannot legislate this sort of morality that will satisfy everyone to the "nth degree".

Go ahead and let 'em have an option for the incorrect choice if they want to pay for it.
God will sort them out later if they make a poor choice.
It is free will.

It's not like when British Citizens pass away, that when they get to the Pearly Gates to check into the eternal hotel in the sky, that St. Peter isn't checking the list twice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Steel

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/contents

Hey DEFEND CHOICE peeps that want to be "secular-legal" in making a poor choice,
imagine developing the consideration for voting for a candidate that has the gumption to introduce legislation, and work to get it passed, like the UK did 55+ years ago.

Clue #1, it ain't the politicians that tell you what you want to hear and you continuously donate money too w/o results. Put up or shut up.

Please Don't continue to dump all your radical hopes and Bullsh*t
onto the Judicial Branch & Executive Branch, and the Pro-Life advocates.
Always remember that they advocated for you to be born, regardless of how miserable you became.

If you regret having been born there's a "wrong choice" for that, Cheech. You're trying to say here that we should be able to murder on Earth because that will get sorted out in the afterlife. Yeah, I'm sure it will, but that's not at all a good, convincing, or even SANE reason to make murder legal. Stop the casuistry.

I used to think abortion was a mistake that a woman should be allowed to make but since it seems we can't determine when life starts I have to be against its legalization at this point. The question goes: Okay, is abortion okay minutes before birth? How about the day before birth? How about the day before that? And so on.

A great discussion is viability which means if the baby can survive outside the womb. That's fine but every time a baby survives earlier and earlier that pushes viability back earlier and earlier and it can only go in that direction- never the other one! So it becomes a discussion from a point of ignorance and I'll admit that I'm in the dark. But given that we are in the dark why not err on the side of life rather than the side of murder?

A lot of people think my arguments come out of religion but they actually don't. They're simply informed by religion. But I'd argue that even if you are not religious and you think life is chaotic and purposeless- that there's no inherent value to human life, it's probably best that you at least at as if there's inherent value to human life. That will keep you ethical and out of justifying anything and everything.

You're a pal for addressing me as Francis. I like you, Almanac!

Something little talked about in the viability argument...

A newborn cannot survive on its own.

A toddler cannot survive on its own.

Human beings require years of nurturing and care after their births in order to survive.

Any parent can attest that children NEVER cease to be a "parasitic clump of cells".

When I really started to dig in on the arguments properly I realized that you can actually play on their terms in all cases and still win. It's great that you brought in "clump of cells" to my talk of viability because in point of actual fact we are all clumps of cells strictly speaking. So that's yet another point of theirs that gets shot down on their own terms.

😉 We all do our part.

The Bush Family does their part too.

Hey Magnusson, if one is unaware of Rush, one might assume an unawareness that during the 1980 Republican Presidential primary elections, George H.W. Bush ran on a Pro-Abortion platform. (All photos of this have been scrubbed even pre-internet.) They did not call themselves Pro-Choice, nor Pro-Life back then. It was Pro-Abortion vs. Anti-Abortion advocates.
Politics have flipped the focus off the murderous act of Abortion by softening the language to
a conversation about "Choice" rather than "Child".

Point is that Pro-Abortion RINO Bush, was narrowly defeated by Anti-Abortion Conservative Reagan, yet Reagan needed the Southern States vote to beat Jimmy Carter. The way he got it, was to offer VP to his runner up, whom delivered Texas and Florida Electoral College Votes.
The day Bush accepted to run on Reagan's ticket as VP, Bush Flip-Flopped and MIRACULOUSLY immediately without a word, became Pro-Life politically, yet trust that he did not give a rats ass about the issue.
Too busy with more interesting pursuits of Texas Tea & Military Equipment Manufacturing behind the scenes with coattail riders
Karl Rove & James Baker III

The Bush Family liked getting pro-life votes, yet secretly it may be alleged they are always a Pro-Abortion crew, and they and their ilk would lie to your face otherwise, to placate you in exchange for your vote.

Standard politics.

Is the common knowledge fact that politicians lie and pander the takeaway or is there another you have in mind?

So, you disagree with Weapons of Mass Destruction being a bigger lie than common place everyday local politicians embellishing throughout time.

OK. Understood.
Bless your heart. You go right ahead with that opinion.

One imagines an IRREGULAR Fellow might spout such, yet a regular one? So ecclectic

So, you just make things up based on your own imaginings and internal conflicts with the intention of obscuring the fact that your argument is lacking.

I stated plainly that politicians lying and pandering to the constituency is commonplace.

The size of the Bush lie, in 1980 with the Abortion issue Flip Flop,
and by his son 21 years later, with "the Weapons of Mass Destruction"
fib ought matter. Those particular political Caucasian's tell more than "White Lies"

Nothing Standard about that. Quite astonishingly Outstanding, actually.

I disagree.

Very commonplace...with politicians of every race.

What next?

Let me guess..."the conservative Caucasian Christians tell lies".

As if liberal, non Caucasian, agnostics, atheists, and satan worshippers do not...🙄

FUN FACT:
Did you know that Papa Bush's daddy Prescott,
1st Treasurer of PLANNED PARENTHOOD, 1947,
is alleged to have sold arms to Germany during WWII, in a roundabout way.

There is no denial U.S. Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut was banking
with Fritz Thyssen
That's how they acquired enough money to get skin in the Oil Game of Texas. *Allegedly.

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-faustian-bargain-industrialist-fritz-thyssen-and-the-nazis/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Win?

As opposed to lose. I don't want to like you, Almanyack. But I do.

Fair Enough Francis. Yet, you hear, but do not listen.
That point of yours is moot, when considering the point I was attempting to make.
The argument of Correct Choice vs. incorrect Choice is not mine, ... I borrowed it from someone smarter than I.

Pro Choice means there exists another option than what you observe in your meme and address as the PRO ABORTION ADVOCATES promote as actual secret and hidden naughty sinful intent of murder. Murder is an incorrect choice, in every instance.

There exists a CORRECT CHOICE of life EVERYTIME. and an incorrect choice of murder through abortion, yet that option exists as well.
I only hope they choose the correct option with their choice, in every instance.

Even if ABORTION IS LEGISLATED AS LEGAL, as it is in the UK since 1967;
it doesn't mean it ever has to be chosen as the path a pregnant mother takes.
Does it?

Perhaps you should refer me to the person who is smarter than you since I'm not hearing a properly articulated defense of the legalization of murder from you. I am listening to you. I'm just refuting it because it's casuistry you're using here and I'm not falling for it.

I'm not well-versed with Rush though I could be a fan of what he generally stands for. He was popular before my time as a proper thinking conservative. I used to be a stupid liberal. If he defends the wanton murder of babies inside the womb then he is wrong. And I would destroy him just as I've destroyed everybody else in this debate. It doesn't matter how smart he is or you are or anyone else is. My focus is laser and I will destroy all of your points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B10qf4SJwgs

Good video, my friend. I'm only 2 minutes in as of this post and it's rather long so I'll get through it in due time but this sort of thinking is also exhibited in cults. It's also called Groupthink. But I am interested in his assertion that the smarter you are the more susceptible you would be to mass formation because it's the exact same with cults, too. People think cultists are dumb but apparently they are actually smarter than usual.

Personally, I will discuss any and all of my beliefs with my critics and where they can convince me to change my mind I will change my mind. It has happened a number of times. In fact, it has to have happened a lot for me because I was raised in a very leftist part of this country so I got lied to a LOT as I was growing up and it takes a lot to get out of that. A vast majority of the population around here is liberal but luckily we're pretty laid back and icy, perhaps like England with more Scandanavian influence. There are a lot of Ukrainian flags on the hill or mountain (whatever) where I live. And I've known a lot of Russians, too.

One imagines it complete folly, to take it to a not well versed end of absolutes.

The assumption of the "if's" game extended to Pro-Life Rush, assuming "he defends the wanton murder of babies inside the womb" is a ludicrous statement. Quite contrary, actually.

I myself am ignorant to many things. When one is not well versed, one is ignorant.
It's unfortunate that todays youth are ignorant to Rush Limbaugh.
Amazing gent with only a high-school education.
What is the difference between book learning and ignorance? Book Learning has limitations.

One unsolicited suggestion might be that while you're laser focused ambition is busy with the task of taking out and destroying the "Baby Murderers", try not to make collateral damage of other Pro Life bystanders near your path.

You stated "I used to be a stupid liberal."

Congratulations on at least no longer being liberal !

go***amnit, you are after my heart with them memes. I'm giving your game here an A+. But I'm one to think Escape From New York and Escape From L.A. are both great and underrated movies. I also think John Carpenter is an underrated director and every movie I've seen of his has been way better than it had any right to be. Except The Thing which I think is properly revered as one of the best, if not the best horror movie of all time.

But I couldn't claim my style is Cromwell. I'm a Machiavellian.

Mmmmm, the tenor of your conversation here is not pro-life in my eyes. And you think I'm stupid, huh? Okay. Quick correction of your grammar. You used the phrase "smarter than I." It's "smarter than me." How's that for a stupid Yank, Limey?

Semantics.
Clerical error noted.
Got me there, Chief.

At ease Francis,
You're preaching to the Pro-Life choir.
This is wasted energy.
One attracts as many flies with sugar as with vinegar. No?

Cromwellian approaches are more your style.
Godspeed.

No worries, mate. I don't accept alliances with casuists. You won't be missed. Now get the hell outta my stinkin' face.

Daaaaayumn straight.