Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[Chica Yeyé 41]

No because Len likely did her homework and would know that knowledge does not emanate from a teacher, but rather is facilitated (or impeded) by such an individual. Len would likely correct the teacher. Something that is apparently clear you did not when you were indoctrinated with ignorance.

Uh... Vygotski, I likey constructivism

A baby is a baby no matter what you want to call it. Abortion stops a beating heart. Plain and simple.

you have absolutely NO CLUE who Vygotski is, do you?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

None of this changes the fact that the father doesn't and shouldn't have any claim over the woman's body during gestation.

If she chooses to get an abortion, he's got to live with it.

Then I guess he should also be able to decide NOT to have the child too because then he'd have to pay child support...

[HAL 9000 96]

Joefail:

QUOTE

Rape, Incest, and life of the mother account for less than 1% of all abortions. So that argument = FAIL

You're the one bringing it up with statistics. Show us the meat.

Regardless of the exact stats we all know that the numbers are very low and to try and make a agrument for abortion on this alone isnt going to get much support.

And I am not arguing with that.

I know your not, but I just didn't see the point in calling out Joe on the exact statistics when we know the numbers are small and hardly a argument for abortion. I don't think you would and never have I heard you use this as a argument.

Joe has a hard time accepting that it isn't his right to impose his beliefs upon others. Using the left hand side of the normal distribution to argue, in ANY way against the rest of the curve, is ridiculous.

How is opposing murdering the innocent "imposing my views"?

Talking about making irrelevant statements...

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Pounding on those keys are we?

I'm still waiting on a relevant post from you is all.

[HAL 9000 96]

You do like your hysteria, don't you Joe?

Every post full of loaded language.

AKA BS.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Whom else would it affect? A fetus isn't exactly a viable individual. The sperm donor/father? Sure- and I think it would be logical to argue that things could be clarified where the sperm donor could be liberated of all responsibility (including right to custody later on). Which would address Joe's incongruous daddy-support obligation.

So yeah, that's huge.

Viable individual?, not sure exactly what you mean by that but what changes after the child is born. The child is still just as dependent on mother.

Joe was instructed to check out the definition of viability. So are you at this point.

Particularly, the difference between prenatal and postnatal viability- the dependence is biologically different and yes, the baby can go to 7-11 for its food after birth... J/K- but it can receive nutrition from other places. Joe is merely being unsurprisingly obtuse.

I know what viable means. With the mothers life not in danger there is some moral questions to be asked when you proceed with the abortion and if you want to ignore them because of some biologically difference go ahead but thats not me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

None of this changes the fact that the father doesn't and shouldn't have any claim over the woman's body during gestation.

If she chooses to get an abortion, he's got to live with it.

Then I guess he should also be able to decide NOT to have the child too because then he'd have to pay child support...

There's no shortage of deadbeat dads.

[HAL 9000 96]

Whom else would it affect? A fetus isn't exactly a viable individual. The sperm donor/father? Sure- and I think it would be logical to argue that things could be clarified where the sperm donor could be liberated of all responsibility (including right to custody later on). Which would address Joe's incongruous daddy-support obligation.

So yeah, that's huge.

Viable individual?, not sure exactly what you mean by that but what changes after the child is born. The child is still just as dependent on mother.

Joe was instructed to check out the definition of viability. So are you at this point.

Particularly, the difference between prenatal and postnatal viability- the dependence is biologically different and yes, the baby can go to 7-11 for its food after birth... J/K- but it can receive nutrition from other places. Joe is merely being unsurprisingly obtuse.

Its still a baby, just one that is more dependent. The terminology was invented to make libs like you feel good about murder.

So if its a political feel-good thing then its a shame 'we libs' didn't get to your mom in time.

Of course- it isn't, so until then continue blowing BS out your blastopore.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

No because Len likely did her homework and would know that knowledge does not emanate from a teacher, but rather is facilitated (or impeded) by such an individual. Len would likely correct the teacher. Something that is apparently clear you did not when you were indoctrinated with ignorance.

Uh... Vygotski, I likey constructivism

A baby is a baby no matter what you want to call it. Abortion stops a beating heart. Plain and simple.

you have absolutely NO CLUE who Vygotski is, do you?

You're clever... I hope it makes you feel good.

[HAL 9000 96]

None of this changes the fact that the father doesn't and shouldn't have any claim over the woman's body during gestation.

If she chooses to get an abortion, he's got to live with it.

Then I guess he should also be able to decide NOT to have the child too because then he'd have to pay child support...

I guess you're wrong on that too.

Pounding on those keys are we?

I'm still waiting on a relevant post from you is all.

Take the stupid glasses off and you'll eventually see what's actually there.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

None of this changes the fact that the father doesn't and shouldn't have any claim over the woman's body during gestation.

If she chooses to get an abortion, he's got to live with it.

Then I guess he should also be able to decide NOT to have the child too because then he'd have to pay child support...

There's no shortage of deadbeat dads.

She kills the child and she's excersizing her right... he doesn't pay for the child, and he's a deadbeat... interesting logic.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

No because Len likely did her homework and would know that knowledge does not emanate from a teacher, but rather is facilitated (or impeded) by such an individual. Len would likely correct the teacher. Something that is apparently clear you did not when you were indoctrinated with ignorance.

Uh... Vygotski, I likey constructivism

A baby is a baby no matter what you want to call it. Abortion stops a beating heart. Plain and simple.

you have absolutely NO CLUE who Vygotski is, do you?

You're clever... I hope it makes you feel good.

Actually yes, it does.

Your response to this particular post had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying to HAL. Nothing, zip, nada. I bet you realize how stupid that makes you look.

Now, keep on digging. Please.

[HAL 9000 96]

Whom else would it affect? A fetus isn't exactly a viable individual. The sperm donor/father? Sure- and I think it would be logical to argue that things could be clarified where the sperm donor could be liberated of all responsibility (including right to custody later on). Which would address Joe's incongruous daddy-support obligation.

So yeah, that's huge.

Viable individual?, not sure exactly what you mean by that but what changes after the child is born. The child is still just as dependent on mother.

Joe was instructed to check out the definition of viability. So are you at this point.

Particularly, the difference between prenatal and postnatal viability- the dependence is biologically different and yes, the baby can go to 7-11 for its food after birth... J/K- but it can receive nutrition from other places. Joe is merely being unsurprisingly obtuse.

I know what viable means. With the mothers life not in danger there is some moral questions to be asked when you proceed with the abortion and if you want to ignore them because of some biologically difference go ahead but thats not me.

No- that's again using the tails of the distribution to justify an argument that realistically isn't even being made.

Its your opinion of what dictates morality that you wish to use to impose upon others. The biology merely defines the legal aspect of things, because that's the law and that's how biology is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

None of this changes the fact that the father doesn't and shouldn't have any claim over the woman's body during gestation.

If she chooses to get an abortion, he's got to live with it.

Then I guess he should also be able to decide NOT to have the child too because then he'd have to pay child support...

There's no shortage of deadbeat dads.

She kills the child and she's excersizing her right... he doesn't pay for the child, and he's a deadbeat... interesting logic.

Yes Joe - only women can bear children, how utterly unfair and biased that is. Those bitches - how dare they! Its a liberal conspiracy is what it is.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

No because Len likely did her homework and would know that knowledge does not emanate from a teacher, but rather is facilitated (or impeded) by such an individual. Len would likely correct the teacher. Something that is apparently clear you did not when you were indoctrinated with ignorance.

Uh... Vygotski, I likey constructivism

A baby is a baby no matter what you want to call it. Abortion stops a beating heart. Plain and simple.

you have absolutely NO CLUE who Vygotski is, do you?

You're clever... I hope it makes you feel good.

Actually yes, it does.

Your response to this particular post had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying to HAL. Nothing, zip, nada. I bet you realize how stupid that makes you look.

Now, keep on digging. Please.

Actually it did. You "learning" that a child isni't a child until after birth doesn't change the fact that it still is.