The Issue of Abortion

apple0154 said:
I see you haven't been doing your reading. :nono:

In msg 251 I quoted from the article, "As time progressed, it became commonly known that children in orphanages were subjected to abuse and neglect. As a result of the terrible conditions that were found in many UNITED STATES' orphanages, most of these institutions were closed down."

That is what supports my assertion. Just like old Repub ideas orphanages were tried and found wanting. Very wanting. So, I ask you, what has changed? On what do you base your assertion that millions of unwanted children would not be abused and neglected? Give me something to go on.

As for claiming I'm an elitist that has to be the funniest thing I ever heard.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



In msg 251 I quoted from the article, "As time progressed, it became commonly known that children in orphanages were subjected to abuse and neglect. As a result of the terrible conditions that were found in many UNITED STATES' orphanages, most of these institutions were closed down."
Click to expand...

Did you omit the reference to the "19th Century" out of ignorance or hoping that no one would again request that you live in the here and now?

You appear to be having trouble showing that the aborted children would live a life of neglect and/or abuse.
 
apple0154 said:
It's not killing. It's preventing bringing a child into the world knowing it will be neglected and abused. It's stopping a process. Do try and understand.
Click to expand...

Either find a different mantra, or present recent studies that will show that the aborted children would have been negleted and/or abused.
 
Good Luck said:
Second, do you TRULY BELIEVE that it is better to be DEAD than to chance being poor, abused, and/or neglected?
Click to expand...

I believe it's better not to be born than be born and endure beatings and starvation and sexual abuse. It is not "to chance". History has documented the abuse in orphanages.

The government shut down almost all the orphanages due to the abuse. Abuse was rampant in orphanages and it would be again if millions of abortions were prohibited and the country was flooded with unwanted children.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Good Luck said:
First of all, yes it is killing. The unborn child is alive; then the doctor applies a procedure to it (which procedure varies depending on the stage of development and/or the doctors preference) then it is DEAD, and removed from the uterus. The procedure KILLS the unborn child. Therefore, killing IS part of the procedure no matter how much you want to lie about it.

Second, do you TRULY BELIEVE that it is better to be DEAD than to chance being poor, abused, and/or neglected? If so, you are truly one sick, twisted, demented fuck up of a human being.

But I guess that little secret has already been fully established.
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Did you omit the reference to the "19th Century" out of ignorance or hoping that no one would again request that you live in the here and now?
Click to expand...

Reference to the 19th century? Try reference to the 20th century. As recently as the 1950s that we know of. People are reluctant to come forward.

You appear to be having trouble showing that the aborted children would live a life of neglect and/or abuse.
Click to expand...

You appear to have trouble comprehending evidence. Abuse and neglect was rampant before legal abortion. There are plenty of first hand accounts. There is no reason to expect any different should abortion become illegal again.
 
apple0154 said:
Then, logically, if a pharmacist refuses to give someone insulin when they can't afford to pay for it the pharmacist is a threat to that person's life. Killing the pharmacist will save the patient's life as the patient will have access to insulin.

Let's say a person cuts their leg with a chain saw and are unable to stop the bleeding. Do they have a right to speed to the hospital/doctor/whomever to get help and avoid stopping at a crosswalk and killing a pedestrian? A person crossing the street requiring the driver to slow down would be a very real threat to the driver/injured person's life. Is the driver/injured person allowed to run over the pedestrian?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
Are you for real?....You just putting us on, right?

OK pinhead....you kill the pharmacist...is you life saved?
I guess after he dies you can go home, his death saves you life?

What? It doesn't? No it doesn't does it....his being dead or alive is irrelevant to your life.....when he drops dead your need remains, his death didn't change anything for you....your needs are the same whether hes alive or dead...

So you speed through a cross walk and kill an old lady....what does it matter to you...you can go home now and an not bleed to death....that death doesn't change anything does it, pinhead, you're still bleeding...?

Forget it....I've become the asshole for even replying to your insanity...I'm finished...
 
bravo said:
Are you for real?....You just putting us on, right?

OK pinhead....you kill the pharmacist...is you life saved?
I guess after he dies you can go home, his death saves you life?
Click to expand...

The person would then have access to insulin.

So you speed through a cross walk and kill an old lady....what does it matter to you...you can go home now and an not bleed to death....that death doesn't change anything does it, pinhead, you're still bleeding...?
Click to expand...

The injured person gets to the hospital sooner and doesn't bleed to death.

Forget it....I've become the asshole for even replying to your insanity...I'm finished...
Click to expand...

No, no, no. Don't sell yourself short. You haven't become an asshole because of replying to me. You were one a long time ago. :clink:
 
apple0154 said:
I see you haven't been doing your reading. :nono:

In msg 251 I quoted from the article, "As time progressed, it became commonly known that children in orphanages were subjected to abuse and neglect. As a result of the terrible conditions that were found in many UNITED STATES' orphanages, most of these institutions were closed down."

That is what supports my assertion. Just like old Repub ideas orphanages were tried and found wanting. Very wanting. So, I ask you, what has changed? On what do you base your assertion that millions of unwanted children would not be abused and neglected? Give me something to go on.

As for claiming I'm an elitist that has to be the funniest thing I ever heard.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



In msg 251 I quoted from the article, "As time progressed, it became commonly known that children in orphanages were subjected to abuse and neglect. As a result of the terrible conditions that were found in many UNITED STATES' orphanages, most of these institutions were closed down."
Click to expand...

You article made reference to the "19th Century" and it's obvious that you aren't aware that this refers to dates from 1801 to 1900. We are presently in the 21st Century and therefore I again ask you if you have anything recent; because otherwise it's apparent that you have no idea of the here and now.

As to someone needing to be doing their reading, you might want to edumacate yourself on when the Civil War was fought.

By the way, you did not reference it in Post #251; because that post was a response made by Bravo to your Post #240.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
It's not killing. It's preventing bringing a child into the world knowing it will be neglected and abused. It's stopping a process. Do try and understand.
Click to expand...

Show where ANYONE knows that the child will be neglected and abused.
Your mantra is becoming a strawman, with nothing to support it.
 
apple0154 said:
Reference to the 19th century? Try reference to the 20th century. As recently as the 1950s that we know of. People are reluctant to come forward.



You appear to have trouble comprehending evidence. Abuse and neglect was rampant before legal abortion. There are plenty of first hand accounts. There is no reason to expect any different should abortion become illegal again.
Click to expand...

You know perfectly well that my comment was to the part of the post you were referring to and it specifically refered to the 19th Century.

Once again; provide some proof that the children being aborted, today, would have been neglected and/or abused.
 
apple0154 said:
I believe it's better not to be born than be born and endure beatings and starvation and sexual abuse. It is not "to chance". History has documented the abuse in orphanages.

The government shut down almost all the orphanages due to the abuse. Abuse was rampant in orphanages and it would be again if millions of abortions were prohibited and the country was flooded with unwanted children.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
So, it is true that you are demented beyond any hope of recovery.

Tell you what: go ask a bunch of survivors of childhood abuse if they would prefer to have never been born. For that matter, ask children currently living the abuse life. I will bet you any wager you care to name the responses in favor of existing will far outweigh the ones who would have preferred to be killed in vivo.

You are truly the most pathetic piece of subhuman shit in existence.
 
apple0154 said:
You appear to have trouble comprehending evidence. Abuse and neglect was rampant before legal abortion. There are plenty of first hand accounts. There is no reason to expect any different should abortion become illegal again.
Click to expand...
Got news for you , you ignorant piece of dung. Abuse and neglect are rampant NOW, with legalized abortion. IF you think child abuse figures have fallen since abortion was legalized, then you are even more deluded than you have previously proven yourself to be. You can look them up yourself. You are beyond stupid. Your brains leaked out your ears and became a stain on your pillow.

Got more news for you, shit heap. My oldest niece has two boys, both unplanned, by different fathers. She (thankfully) did not marry either one of the losers. But here is the thing: those boys could not be more loved if they were fully planned for. Yes, they have it tough economically (comparatively) but they get along. I do not get to see them very often, but they are healthy, happy, well adjusted, bright little boys, both of them. So, while you are stuffing your "better dead than poor/abused/neglected" bullshit, you can also stuff your "they will be abused/neglected if they are unwanted" right along side it. You are so full of shit anyway, your anus should handle the load.
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
You article made reference to the "19th Century" and it's obvious that you aren't aware that this refers to dates from 1801 to 1900. We are presently in the 21st Century and therefore I again ask you if you have anything recent; because otherwise it's apparent that you have no idea of the here and now.

As to someone needing to be doing their reading, you might want to edumacate yourself on when the Civil War was fought.

By the way, you did not reference it in Post #251; because that post was a response made by Bravo to your Post #240.
Click to expand...

Hello?????

You might want to do your own research. I've offered sufficient references and even a video of a first person account. If that's not sufficient I can't help you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why do you assume that someone who doesn't want a child will insist on keeping it.......
Click to expand...

His "logic" is that since the child was aborted, that means it was unwanted and therefore an unwanted child will be abused and/or neglected.

That means that the 1.3 million would have been abused and/or neglected, according to Apple's "logic".
That equates to approximetly 3,562 A DAY or for those that still don't care, that's almost 148 AN HOUR or almost 2.5 PER MINUTE.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You know perfectly well that my comment was to the part of the post you were referring to and it specifically refered to the 19th Century.

Once again; provide some proof that the children being aborted, today, would have been neglected and/or abused.
Click to expand...

It's called learning from history. Obviously, some people never learn.
 
apple0154 said:
History. We are supposed to learn from history.

Why do you think things would be different? What has changed?
Click to expand...

Then you support killing all Germans; because they started 2 World Wars.
and
You also support a genocide against Muslims, seeing as how SOME Muslims have killed people in terrorist bombings.

That's where you fail.
You can't show that even 1 child WILL BE abused and/or neglected; but because the POSSIBILITY exists, you justify the murder of 1.3 million for last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top