YoBuckStopsHereA Growing Share Of Americans Think States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion
varothWell, yeah, it’s almost like the government shouldn’t get to control your body.
So 3 seconds before the head crowns, you should be able to kill the baby?
Flying SquidAn abortion ‘3 seconds before the head crowns’ is called a birth. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. If you can terminate the pregnancy without killing the fetus, go for it. The fact is, almost every abortion performed in the third trimester is due to the fetus being unviable or the health of the mother.
So you just absolutely refuse to engage in the thought experiment if the result of it proves you wrong.
If you can terminate the pregnancy without killing the fetus, go for it.
If you can end the pregnancy without killing the fetus, but you kill the fetus, should that be illegal?
It’s not a fetus once it’s born and killing it would be infanticide. Why don’t you know this?
What does “once it’s born” have to do with this conversation? And why are you dodging my question:
If you can end the pregnancy without killing the fetus, but you kill the fetus, should that be illegal?
Do you know how loudly dodging this question speaks? You’re basically admitting it.
I think you’re not thinking through the complications of the question. If you had to kill the fetus to save the life of the mother rather than allow it to be born, should that be legal? If the fetus is discovered to have a fatal flaw that will allow it to live only a few days in severe agony if it isn’t put out of its misery immediately, should that be legal?
Or should we allow all pregnancies that are viable in terms of a successful birth happen that way regardless of circumstance?
So what you’re saying is that it depends? Yeah, I agree. And we both therefore disagree “States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion”. We also therefore agree it’s fine for the government to have some control over your body.
What is you think we disagree on, and why?
Where did I say I disagreed with that? Are you putting words in my mouth? Otherwise, please quote me.
If you disagree with nothing I’m saying, what was you were hoping you’d added to the conversation?
Ah, so you are putting words in my mouth. If you wish to have a discussion with someone you imagine you’re talking to, I will be happy to leave you two to it.
How is asking you what you think putting words in your mouth? If there’s some point you want to make, just make it. If there’s some point you have made you think I have wrong, just clarify it.
You didn’t ask me what I thought. You declared that we both disagreed with something. Please, again, quote me. Because otherwise, it’s a lie.
I have invited you multiple times to tell me what you think. It’s not my job to help you find your tongue. Speak or don’t.
You also decided to tell me what I thought. Right here:
And we both therefore disagree “States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion”. We also therefore agree it’s fine for the government to have some control over your body.
I did not disagree that states shouldn’t be able to put any limits on abortion and I did not agree that it’s fine for the government to have control over your body. I made neither of those claims. You lied.
I think that’s about as many invitations to say something of substances I’m going to watch you reject before I decide you have nothing of substance to say at all.
Why should I say anything substantive to you when you’re going to lie about what I think? What’s the point? You’ll just lie again.
Do you have a crush on me? Because if so, I’m not interested. Otherwise there’s no reason for you to still be talking to me.
No, I would just like to know why you lied about what I think.
“Oh my god, a premise, I just have to accept it!” – your imaginary version me.
I showed very clearly that you lied. You claim I believe the exact opposite of what I believe. I quoted you. Are you trying to gaslight me now and still claim I agree with something I absolutely do not agree with? Do you really think that will work?