Planned Parenthood butchers reject federal funding offer proposed by Trump

[quip]

How far into pregnancy are you ok with abortion and what's your reasoning for it being acceptable prior to that time?

Personally, around the 20th week when the fetus begins developing the capacity to feel pain.

the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, link

Plus the risks to mother regarding late term abortions.

 

[ok doser]

Personally, around the 20th week when the fetus begins developing the capacity to feel pain.

the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, link

Plus the risks to mother regarding late term abortions.

if the baby could be killed painlessly, would you have any qualms?

if the risk to the mother could be minimized as well?

 

[glassjester]

if the baby could be killed painlessly, would you have any qualms?

if the risk to the mother could be minimized as well?

Why does he even care if the baby does feel pain while he or she is killed? Why is that something worth avoiding?

 

[quip]

Why does he even care if the baby does feel pain while he or she is killed? Why is that something worth avoiding?

Put your left hand on a table or workbench...now with your right hand grab a hammer.

Now proceed to smash your left hand with the hammer until you can't stand the pain anymore.

Now, what was the question? :think:

 

[quip]

if the baby could be killed painlessly, would you have any qualms?

if the risk to the mother could be minimized as well?

Barring any untoward circumstances...its my view she should have chosen to abort prior to this late stage of development.

 

[ok doser]

that suggests that your rationale involves something other than the two criteria you presented

 

[glassjester]

Put your left hand on a table or workbench...now with your right hand grab a hammer.

Now proceed to smash your left hand with the hammer until you can't stand the pain anymore.

Now, what was the question? :think:

But why should the law seek to protect an unborn child from pain?

 

[quip]

But why should the law seek to protect an unborn child from pain?

Put your left hand on a table or workbench...now with your right hand grab a hammer.

Now proceed to smash your left hand with the hammer until you can't stand the pain anymore.

Now, what was the question? :think:

 

[quip]

that suggests that your rationale involves something other than the two criteria you presented

That's you failed to distinguish between objective and subjective forms of objections.

Remember you asked me if I'd have any qualms. I'm not as arrogant as to demand public policy be set by my personal views. You?

 

[glassjester]

Put your left hand on a table or workbench...now with your right hand grab a hammer.

Now proceed to smash your left hand with the hammer until you can't stand the pain anymore.

Now, what was the question? :think:

Quip... you've "failed to distinguish between objective and subjective forms of objections."

Remember, I asked you why the law should protect an unborn child from pain.

 

[glassjester]

I'm not as arrogant as to demand public policy be set by my personal views.

Of course you are. Unless you believe in an objective basis for morality. Do you?

 

[ok doser]

I'm not as arrogant as to demand public policy be set by my personal views.

you don't vote?

 

[glassjester]

you don't vote?

That would be arrogant.

 

[quip]

Quip... you've "failed to distinguish between objective and subjective forms of objections."

Remember, I asked you why the law should protect an unborn child from pain.

Seems you're having issues relating. Here we'll try this: Let doser grab a hammer and crush your hand of his choice.

Again, what was the question?

 

[quip]

you don't vote?

"I'm not as arrogant as to demand public policy be set by my personal views."

That's democracy not utter eradication and/or public haranguing.

 

[ok doser]

"I'm not as arrogant as to demand public policy be set by my personal views."

That's democracy not eradication and/or public haranguing.

so who's "demanding" that public policy be set by (their) personal views?

 

[quip]

so who's "demanding" that public policy be set by (their) personal views?

You and other pro-lifers.

You'll take a national vote on abortion as it's better than nothing :idunno: but in actuality what you really desire (demand) is an outright eradication of abortion from the face of the earth. Correct?

 

[ok doser]

You and other pro-lifers.

cite?



btw, desire and demand are not equivalent

 

[glassjester]

"I'm not as arrogant as to demand public policy be set by my personal views."

That's democracy not utter eradication and/or public haranguing.

You have yet to produce an argument for why unborn children should be protected under the law.

I'll give you my reason - because they are human beings. That, by the way, is sufficient reason to not murder them, too.

So what's your reason? What is it about an unborn child that makes you think the law should prevent them from being hurt?

 

[quip]

cite?

:rotfl:

btw, desire and then demand are not equivalent

cause---->effect.

Better?