Scientific Abortion Laws

Scientific Abortion Laws

The natural abortion laws site

Pro Choice Primer #2

This is the second installment of the “Pro Choice Primer”. In the first installment this disclaimer was offered: —- Always keep in mind that every pro life claim to moral superiority of their cause is ultimately disproved by the fact that in order to save a fetus, a pro lifer must allow an innocent born life to die. (See the about page here and read the “Law of Charity”)—-

Keep in mind that this page does not claim that there is no life at conception. The fact is that 30 percent +/- of all conceptions will become babies. So there is life at conception, it just does not start at conception.

http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?p=236

Please see the “Pro Choice Primer #1″ for items 1-6.

(7) One of the common claims of the pro life movement is that no abortion should ever be allowed. For example this is a quote from the site of the “Association of Pro Life Physicians” where they are speaking of the right to abortion when rape, incest, health of the mother and other similar issues are present:

“It is easy to prove that these objections to the pro-life ethic are insincere. What if someone brought up these arguments to justify the killing of an infant: “The baby was conceived through rape” – “The infant is deformed and mentally handicapped” – “The mother’s health is suffering as a result of her baby.” Would anyone who endorses abortion in the womb openly justify the killing of an infant using these excuses? No, they would not. This proves that these objections are insincere and that the heart of the matter is whether the fetus is a living human. If it could be proven that the human fetus is just as alive and just as human as the infant, then these objections would not justify aborting a fetus any more than an infant. (For a thorough scientific argument proving that life begins at conception, please see the article on our website or the APP tract “When Does Human Life Begin?”)” http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

The first error of the Association of Pro Life Physicians (hereinafter: “PLP”) is to assume that the issue turns “only” on whether or not there is human life at conception.
(Item 6 of the “Pro Choice Primer #1″ proves that life began before conception and that “life at conception” is a falsehood)http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?p=236

The abortion issue turns on many other factors.
a) The scientific fact is that there more people dying than can be saved. There are 7 billion people on earth and each is dying. They are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. In fact they are dying so fast they cannot all be saved. But regardless of the speed at which they are dying, it is impossible to save them because everyone dies. Therefore one must choose whom they will save, they may save a fetus or they may save an innocent baby, child or adult, but they cannot save both. Both cannot be saved because with so many dying so quickly, if we spend one second saving a fetus, 1.8 born babies die. The scientific fact is that pro lifers do not save life, they trade the life of a born person for the life of a fetus. Therefore an attempt to force the birth of any fetus leads to the death of a born person. So there is no logical reason not to abort a fetus that is not wanted.

b) The scientific fact is that all of the claims of life at conception are false and based upon a retrospective view of human life. A retrospective view can support a claim of life at any point in the cycle of life and support that view. However, life is not created retrospectively, it is created prospectively. The prospective view of life encompasses the retrospective view and proves that the retrospective view is wrong. For example the prospective view shows that life began with the first DNA 3.5 billion years ago and evolved into the current human species. The retrospective view cannot explain where the “life” at conception came from originally or at the instant of conception and therefore fails entirely when abortion is integrated into the issue. For that reason, the prediction of the PLP is correct, the abortion issue is resolved in favor of the right to choose. A cell in meiosis becomes the zygote and has all the potential of life as the zygote, therefore it is just as deserving of the claim as the beginning of life as the zygote. This leads to the absurdity that a cell in meiosis is a baby and therefore should be saved rather than saving the life of a born baby, child, adult or a pregnant woman. It therefore makes no sense to stop abortion related to rape, incest or for any other reason.

c) The PLP does not consider the fact that life is a reproducible phenomenon. In the “Law of Preclusion
“http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?page_id=31 it is clear that if one aborts one fetus, they may almost certainly be capable of creating another. Generally if a person is forced to give birth to one fetus, then the possibility of creating another is diminished for a number of reasons. For example a person may not be able to afford a second fetus. One may not have the physical ability because of illness or genetic flaw to have a second fetus. Or one may be limited by the fact that 14 out of 100k women die in child birth. So denying abortion causes the loss of potential life that is wanted. In effect forcing the birth of one child frequently denies the ability of conceiving another child. http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?page_id=31

d) Complicating the matter is the “Law of Consent”. http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?page_id=31 It is a fact that 70 percent of conceptions end in abortion in the first trimester and as many as 15 percent of those that make it past the first trimester also die. It is a fact that if a couple abstains from sex there will be no abortions at all. However if a couple has sex they are “in effect” consenting to the abortion of 70 percent of the life they produce. Pro lifers, if they are really pro life should stop the 70% abortion rate before continuing to have sex. Unless they do, they are consenting to “killing” babies according to their definition of “baby.”
The fact is that the aborted fetuses are usually the genetically flawed zygotes that will produce genetically flawed children. If the concern is for saving the handicapped, then the place to start is at conception. Otherwise one is allowing more than 70 percent of life to die.
——
These are but a few of the issues that the PLP has overlooked. Before making judgment on abortion the PLP should look at their own flaws.

55 Responses to Pro Choice Primer #2

  1. On June 21, 2014 at 2:13 am Longchamp France said:

    Longchamp France

    Wow, that may be an amazing checklist. My partner and i will most likely not purchase one trigger some of their levels of competition provide more quality. Or maybe might improve it out time.

    Permalink
  2. On June 14, 2014 at 4:05 am http://www.jeromebernigaud.fr/ said:

    http://www.jeromebernigaud.fr/

    I got only thinking, precisely what will the RIAA crew include as data that Fran saved or maybe loaded new music? Which is Joel perhaps required to submit his computer on the judge intended for examination or perhaps something? Now i’m merely trying t…

    Permalink
  3. On June 6, 2014 at 7:24 am louboutin soldes said:

    louboutin soldes

    Hey there anyone, just hear and also publish upon grooveshark. com, you become fully accountable if they ever previously visit the courtroom over the top of it.

    Permalink
  4. On May 30, 2014 at 11:36 am louboutin femme said:

    louboutin femme

    I’m developing a issue with often the take away ad/unlimited album upgrade. Trying to find while using no cost application without any difficulties, as well as performed the actual free update through i-tunes today without having troubles. When i chos…

    Permalink
  5. On May 10, 2014 at 10:36 pm Russell Crawford said:

    Let me remind you one more time of your insurmountable problem.

    “No one has let a baby die. It was demonstrated, even using your own erroneous primer, that pro life people can work to help save a fetus and a baby…the two are not mutually and universally linked.”

    No you can’t work together to save a fetus and a baby. The fact is that “everyone” is dying. Do you understand that. The rate of death is 1.8 per second for born life and 8 per second for natural abortions. You cannot even see the natural abortions and you cannot find the born persons that are dying. You cannot know which women are going to abort until they try to abort.
    So you have multiple impossibilities to deal with. You don’t know who will abort so you must expend time to save them, and each second you spend you lose 1.8 born lives and 7 billion born people must be searched to find the 1.8 that will die. In addition the 250 million zygotes you choose to let die cannot even be seen and you don’t know who will have one in their body. With all the impossibilities you face saving either born life or unborn zygotes, you will waste time. And each second you waste, 1.8 born people die.

    Permalink
  6. On May 10, 2014 at 10:21 pm Russell Crawford said:

    {Boooooring.”Of course you have made the choice to let innocent babies die. I am
    sorry your IQ is to low to understand. Perhaps you can get someone to
    explain my writings to you.”

    Don’t need someone to point out false dilemma situations based on your pseudo-laws.}

    To be a false dilemma, it must be false. And it is not. You have a choice, you can save innocent born life or you can let it die and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let babies die.

    {Don’t need someone to tell me that i’ve somehow killed a baby somewhere. Remember, you couldn’t even name one…..yet i’m guilty of millions. Your argument is worthless and without merit.}

    What is your proof?

    {“No you can’t work together to save a fetus and a baby.”

    You do know that such reasoning is faulty right?}

    No it is not.

    {That your own primer points it out, above….how desperate do you have to be to say someone is in error for using your *own* primer as a resource for the argument ROFL!}

    You just don’t understand what you read.

    {“The fact is that “everyone” is dying.”

    Which makes your choice a false one…if we’re all dying, then the choice doesn’t matter and your argument holds no water.}

    Your IQ is just to low to understand that people can be saved.

    { Again. Of course, your argument is wrong for the many reasons listed (if they’re still here, i know you get delete happy!), but even -this- is easy enough to break.}

    You have never made a sensible argument. All your arguments are poorly thought out, like the one above. You really will never understand, no matter how many times you are told. The fact is that life, can be saved. Get someone to explain that to you.

    {“So you have multiple impossibilities to deal with.”

    If it’s impossible, then there’s no choice and you’re incorrect for offering it. Presto!}

    No, life can be saved, you just don’t know which can be saved until you try. For example you don’t know which baby will die, until you look.
    And each second you waste saving a fetus is a second you can’t look for a baby to save. Get someone with an average or above IQ to explain that to you.

    {” In addition the 250 million zygotes you choose to let die cannot even
    be seen and you don’t know who will have one in their body.”

    You realize that no one “chooses” those that happen naturally. }

    So you will have great difficulty finding one to save. And each second you spend attempting to save a fetus will be a second you let one of these “babies” die.

    “That’s not even a real thing, yet you’re arguing it as it is. Another error you can’t seem to get past, yet arguing that we’re all wrong and stupid……ooook.”

    So zygotes are not real unless you claim they are real.

    {Your ad hominem evasions are laughable. If you have an argument, make it.”

    which one? the ones here? the ones i made before you removed? the ones that are still here which still refute your bad logic and non-arguments? Take your pick.}

    You have made no relevant arguments. If you have one, make it.

    “I just think you like the attention…..otherwise, you wouldn’t keep arguing with me using these kinds of easily rejected items. you keep trying to play the intellectual, but your sophistry mixed with no argument and all of these errors (that took literally 2 seconds to find, and in your own words) are boring.”

    Your IQ is just to low to understand what is being said. You cannot even understand that people that are dying can be saved. Until you can understand that simple fact, you are wasting your time and mine.

    {Do you have an argument that isn’t this repetitive stuff, or….are you going to keep using the premise AS the conclusion…which is another error.

    I’m bored now…and you’re still being creepy.}

    You remain with a choice, you may save innocent babies or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. Your choice, will be to let the baby die. Right?

    Permalink
  7. On May 10, 2014 at 10:05 pm Russell Crawford said:

    “you deleted arguments that weren’t alike, that were that i had to repost, and so on. Hell, you admitted you didn’t even read some of them and just deleted them *because* i had posted them. You didn’t even read them….doesn’t that tell you something about your attitude here?”

    That is a lie.

    {“Do you have an argument?”

    do you always ask questions that you, yourself, moderate the answers out of existence?}

    Do you have a question? If it is a question that has already been answered, I will delete it.

    {“Yes it is when the intent is to avoid making an real comment.”

    Comments have been made. You keep saying they’re repeats, deleting them, not answering them expect with the -same- question/answer crap over and over (odd how you can repeat, but no one else can….so go fig). It’s silly to keep arguing with someone like you who can’t recognize even simple discussion items, and deletes them but argues against them anyway with no real point and the same garbage logic over and over.}

    Do you have a question?

    {I don’t know why you waited 3 months to reply. Were you bored? Did you miss me? Did your petty little website need some traffic again?

    You’re old and creepy, making an argument that no one agrees with, uses anywhere that matters, and that you contradict repeatedly. You’re a joke, and I don’t give two shits if you delete this or not. Please go ahead and delete this. Feel free to do whatever you want, on a website that has literally zero traffic…who cares what you write here on your personal echo chamber?}

    Do you have a question?

    {You’ve lost this discussion every time. At least elsewhere, you couldnt delete them and then whine as if someone didn’t respond.}

    Sure

    {If you have an actual rebuttal to my arguments from like 3 months ago….feel free. do you remember what those are? Or do you need help with that too? too bad there’s not a family member, or someone, around to help you with these complex issues.}

    Do you have a question?

    {We’re done, Russ….you lost a long time ago, and these random responses 3 months later with *literally* the same argument ad nauseum is boring, repetitive, and as always…without merit. Please feel free to keep using the same fallacies around your argument (that you didn’t deny…..isn’t that odd?)}

    Do you have a question?

    {Please, go back and read the actual arguments. They’re all here. Or are they? It’s so hard to tell, since 75% of them were removed, and you never bothered to read them.}

    Your postings were not arguments. They were rants, just like these.

    {You’re done. ;)}

    Bye.

    Permalink
    • On May 10, 2014 at 10:16 pm MarcusFenix said:

      “That is a lie.”

      If it’s a lie, where did they go? Why did you admit to deleting them without reading them? Why admit any of it, when you’re going to use this old canard as a response. If it’s a lie, all of those items would still be here. I didn’t remove them…..so…..who do you think is left to do that?

      you, buddy. All you.

      “Do you have a question? If it is a question that has already been answered, I will delete it.”

      blah blah blah…..I love how something you can’t argue or work with is a “rant”. Does that make everything you keep saying a “rant”, so i can dismiss it out of hand as you do with anything else? Just want to be sure we’re on the same page.

      “Do you have a question?

      Do you have a question?

      Do you have a question?

      Do you have a question?

      Do you have a question?

      Do you have a question?

      You’re being repetitive. you’re the one who responded to me this evening…after 3 freaking months. I didn’t ask anything recently. Admit it, you’re lonely and wanting a friend. It’s not like anyone else is really here.

      Let’s be real for a minute. In a few years, you’re gonna die. You’re old, obviously losing mental capabilities…your life is coming to an end in the next few decades. you’re going to join whatever family you pretend to have in some place that is warm and balmy, and while i’m pretty over the idea of trying to talk sense into you, i want this piece to sink in.

      Your crazy ideas are not going to outlive you. None will long mourn your passing. No one in the pro-choice community is going to herald you as anything at all. Your ideas won’t be around 50 years from now as you’ve claimed…they won’t be around 50 days after you’re gone. Your last gasping attempts at being relevant and trying to talk to people in your private echo chamber aren’t very effective.

      no one cares, Russell..hell, even i don’t care. you have no argument…you didn’t actually refute anything i said even just this evening….just the same “do you have a question?” montage over and over. No, i don’t have a question. your entire line of thinking was broken, dismantled, and sent packing a long time ago.

      Give it up, Russell. no one cares what you think, no one is using your ideas -anywhere-, academia doesn’t recognize you at all, and no one is using your arguments anywhere, at all, for anything.

      You’re playing to a room that’s empty except for me….and from this point forward, it’ll be empty of that as well. If you want to argue with yourself, or make yourself feel better about things in your waning twilight years, then be my guest.

      Say hi to your kid for me! ;)

      Permalink
      • On May 10, 2014 at 10:28 pm Russell Crawford said:

        {“That is a lie.”

        If it’s a lie, where did they go? Why did you admit to deleting them without reading them? Why admit any of it, when you’re going to use this old canard as a response. If it’s a lie, all of those items would still be here. I didn’t remove them…..so…..who do you think is left to do that?

        you, buddy. All you.}

        That is also a lie.

        {“Do you have a question? If it is a question that has already been answered, I will delete it.”

        blah blah blah…..I love how something you can’t argue or work with is a “rant”. Does that make everything you keep saying a “rant”, so i can dismiss it out of hand as you do with anything else? Just want to be sure we’re on the same page.

        “Do you have a question?

        Do you have a question?

        Do you have a question?

        Do you have a question?

        Do you have a question?

        Do you have a question?

        You’re being repetitive. you’re the one who responded to me this evening…after 3 freaking months. I didn’t ask anything recently. Admit it, you’re lonely and wanting a friend. It’s not like anyone else is really here.}

        That is just a rant.

        {Let’s be real for a minute. In a few years, you’re gonna die. You’re old, obviously losing mental capabilities…your life is coming to an end in the next few decades. you’re going to join whatever family you pretend to have in some place that is warm and balmy, and while i’m pretty over the idea of trying to talk sense into you, i want this piece to sink in.}

        Another ad hominem, because you lack a cogent argument.

        {Your crazy ideas are not going to outlive you. None will long mourn your passing. No one in the pro-choice community is going to herald you as anything at all. Your ideas won’t be around 50 years from now as you’ve claimed…they won’t be around 50 days after you’re gone. Your last gasping attempts at being relevant and trying to talk to people in your private echo chamber aren’t very effective.}

        Another ad hominem.

        {no one cares, Russell..hell, even i don’t care. you have no argument…you didn’t actually refute anything i said even just this evening….just the same “do you have a question?” montage over and over. No, i don’t have a question. your entire line of thinking was broken, dismantled, and sent packing a long time ago.}

        Another ad hominem.

        {Give it up, Russell. no one cares what you think, no one is using your ideas -anywhere-, academia doesn’t recognize you at all, and no one is using your arguments anywhere, at all, for anything.}

        Another ad hominem.

        {You’re playing to a room that’s empty except for me….and from this point forward, it’ll be empty of that as well. If you want to argue with yourself, or make yourself feel better about things in your waning twilight years, then be my guest.
        Say hi to your kid for me! ;)}

        What a waste of time.
        You remain with a choice, you may save innocent babies or you may let them die in an effort to force the birth of a zygote you cannot even prove is alive or will be born alive.

        Permalink
      • On May 10, 2014 at 10:39 pm Russell Crawford said:

        I have posted numerous times the problem you must overcome to be able to save both a fetus and a born baby. You have a choice and sadly for you your choice is to murder innocent born babies. I have proved to you numerous time that you cannot save both the fetus and the baby, and you have avoided addressing the problem that proves you are a murderer. So here it is again:

        “No one has let a baby die. It was demonstrated, even using your own erroneous primer, that pro life people can work to help save a fetus and a baby…the two are not mutually and universally linked.”

        No you can’t work together to save a fetus and a baby. The fact is that “everyone” is dying. Do you understand that. The rate of death is 1.8 per second for born life and 8 per second for natural abortions. You cannot even see the natural abortions and you cannot find the born persons that are dying. You cannot know which women are going to abort until they try to abort.
        So you have multiple impossibilities to deal with. You don’t know who will abort so you must expend time to save them, and each second you spend you lose 1.8 born lives and 7 billion born people must be searched to find the 1.8 that will die. In addition the 250 million zygotes you choose to let die cannot even be seen and you don’t know who will have one in their body. With all the impossibilities you face saving either born life or unborn zygotes, you will waste time. And each second you waste, 1.8 born people die.

        Permalink
  8. On May 10, 2014 at 9:26 am Russell Crawford said:

    “Well, let’s do this then, if Russell can oblige.”

    Sure, I am a very busy person though and your BS is very tiring.

    “Let’s take his post, below.

    “As you can tell here, the only arguments that the Live Action News bunch have are baseless insults and ad hominem fallacies.”

    Except…the very first post that was dropped here by me, as in the other thread, was a logical breakdown of his items. I used no terms that could be even mistaken as being ad hominems, I was concise and pointed out the mistakes his “laws” and “theories” make.”

    No, you wasted my time. And you didn’t identify yourself as a member of “Life Action News” staff either. So are you a member?

    “His answers, as you can go see…where less than stellar.”

    An ad hominem occurs when you avoid the substance to simply insult.

    “His responses to questions were simply restating his point over again. If that didn’t work, it was “asked and answered”…even though his “answer” was the point he restated. Even for questions he finally, after almost a week, actually did answer, they weren’t answers either. They were deflections or rejections of any point being made, and simple exclamation that he’d “proved” things. Telling him that repeating the same thing over and over isn’t proof doesn’t sink in.”

    When you already have the answer to a question, why ask again?

    “Even here, you can see this mentality at work with this phrase:

    “We can win this and outlaw the pro life movement if we can just keep them “explaining” their reasons for being pro life.”

    Notice that his reasoning is exactly as I’ve stated…if you can just keep explaining it (over and over, that is), then finally…you’ll outlaw someone’s opinion. Notice the abject futility of that statement? Turn that around, so that your opinion on something is outlawed. Take that statement in for a moment and consider it.”

    That is out of context and of no value. However, just keep up your empty arguments, they are the reason I believe you will lose.

    “Continuing on, he states:

    “There are 14 natural abortions each second.”
    Yet, for these being natural abortions that occur as part of a bodily process and in practically every case being unknown to the person (he states these happen in the initial stages, before a woman would test out for being pregnant), somehow….pro life people are “responsible” for it.”

    You are not responsible for natural abortion.

    “We’re also, by his own admission, responsible for the lives of 7 billion (give or take) people.”

    Yes you are responsible for the deaths of people if you claim to save life and instead trade one life for another.

    ” Now, he’s not. He’s distanced himself from being responsible for anything as much as possible, but even believing that a 20 week cutoff for abortion is ok somehow makes you pro-life, and immediately responsible for 7 billion lives.”

    You are responsible for the death of the people you could have saved if you claim to be pro life, but instead let one life die to save a fetus.

    ” There’s no actual, factual, logical reason as to why your opinion would make you literally responsible for every human being on the planet, except for his say so on the matter.”

    You are responsible for those who you cause to die. You claim that you save life, yet you choose to let life die to save fetuses.

    (” The pro life movement could choose to save any of those 14 and not interfere with a woman’s right to abortion.”

    Couple this sentence with what was just presented, and you begin to see a pattern. Tell me, from your opinion…how do you stop something you never knew existed or happened in the first place? You can’t, but…somehow, there’s some reason we can.)

    You do know it exists, because I have informed you it does exist. Each time you have sex that results in a conception, you know that 70 percent of the time it will die. You can either stop having sex or you can find a way to stop the death of the zygote.

    {“But that would not fulfill their goal of “putting women in their place.” This is about women, it is not about saving fetuses.”

    Past the point that no one here is being a misogynist on the matter, the pro-life movement comprises itself of more women then men.}

    And on some plantations there were more slaves than masters. So what is your point?

    ” Are women therefore trying to put themselves in “their place”? Obviously, that would require some review.”

    There were many Jewish Nazis. By the way, the Nazis were pro life just like you.

    ” Beyond such a simplistic notion, it is about women….but also their unborn AND born children.”

    Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life. So you simply let born babies die to save fetuses. Right?

    { Russell makes this all askew when he tries to somehow pit born children against unborn. Usually, his answers are just base assertion fallacies (like his laws and theories, most of the time). He’s right, because he says he is. That’s easily enough demonstrated all in his blog.}

    The proof is in your actions. You choose to save a fetus you cannot even prove will be born and let innocent born babies, children and adults die.

    (“The natural abortion rate is astronomical, of all conceptions, 70 percent die before the first trimester.”

    This statistic is slightly misleading…not because of facts, but because of context. How many women lose their child after being 8 weeks pregnant?}

    You can attempt to change the subject, but it is a waste of time. Most z/e/fs that make it to implantation live. But 20 percent still die.

    ” I think as rational people, we could agree that such an “epidemic” isn’t happening. His stats of 70% include eggs that don’t attach properly, and so on….not testable pregnancies, but the same process he says we can stop…when it’s not even known to the woman who might be pregnant it even happened.”

    You have a choice to improve the chances of those 70 percent or to attempt to save the small percentage that are aborted intentionally. Your choice is to let the vast number die. You could immediately choose to save the wanted zygotes that die, yet you want to take away the rights of women instead.

    “Now, if we had 70% of women who were between 3-12 weeks pregnant who were losing their children, two things would become immediately obvious. First, we’d be having a rather long and very pointed national (or even global) conversation on it. Second, our population would then be in decline as a result of these deaths. We wouldn’t be experiencing population growth. A simple check of stats of women who miscarry (not abort, since that is purposely done by the mother) would reveal this statistic to be misrepresented. Three guesses who did it?”

    That is just a “mudding the waters” fallacy and is of no use in the debate.

    (“The pro life movement could save them and never even get in a dispute from anyone.”

    Of course, there’s no way this could be done, given his guidelines.}

    You can save a wanted zygote any time you wish and not violate anything I have said.

    “When challenged on this point (before removing the post), he stated once against “you have a choice”, and repeated the mantra. He already knows there’s no “saving” unborn children that never really came to be, and he can switch the term around to wherever he wants to suit his debate at the time. It’s inherently dishonest and fallacious at the same time to make the premise so ambiguous as to fit any situation and be able to change the definition or statistics to frame the debate however you want.”

    The fact is you can save born babies and wanted zygotes, if you really care about life. You don’t care about life, you kill life to save fake babies that you can’t prove will be born.

    {“If the goal were to save babies, why not save those billions upon billions that are aborting naturally?”

    Notice he, right there, links to a miscarriage site. Consider that for just a moment.}

    You have a choice, you can save these wanted zygotes or let them die to save unwanted zygotes.

    {He wants pro life people (not pro choice, for some reason…again, if there’s a choice between pregnancy and abortion and you state that your side supports both…shouldn’t you be in on this?) to stop miscarriages.}

    You are the one that claims to save life, while letting it die. I do not claim to save life, yet I do. Because I do not claim to save “babies” I have no duty to save babies and can therefore save dogs, cats or simply my money.

    “Read that again. His statement. What he’s saying. Pro-life people are responsible for every miscarriage on the planet, by his laws. Also, we’re charged with stopping all of them.”

    I never said you are responsible for the miscarriages to any greater extent than your other murders. You have the choice with both the zygotes and born babies, children and adults. You can save them or let them die. Your choice is to let them die.

    “Any reasonable person would see this as….well, frivolous and silly. He claims it’s totally possible. Of course, he doesn’t say how it’s done, or why 1 person should be responsible for all of it, but those are just details.”

    It is possible to save life. Look in your local hospital, the proof is amazing. And support research on zygotes.

    “An in depth reading of his material yields the same problems and inconsistencies he claims don’t exist. I got all of that just from 2 paragraphs of his material”

    You simply are guilty of letting innocent babies die and are trying to make excuses.

    “Not hard to see where this all goes.”

    You have yet to address my claims. You have a choice, you can save wanted zygotes, embryos, fetuses and wanted babies, children and adults or you can make the choice to let them die. Your choice is to let innocent life die.

    Permalink
    • On May 10, 2014 at 7:02 pm MarcusFenix said:

      Russell,

      Your arguments were addressed over a dozen times, of which you deleted…about a dozen of them. Why fake it like there’s no argument, when you couldn’t even take the time to bother reading, them, by your own admission.

      Also…it took you 3 months to respond. Did you waste that much time? You could have replied 2 months and 25 days ago.

      Your arguments were busted, your arguments are garbage logic that hold zero water.

      Just keep posting on your FB page, where no one actually reads it, other than that one guy who tells you that you’re full of it over and over.

      Next time, don’t take 3 months to reply to something. You’re a waste of time, with a non-argument for things all in your head.

      I didn’t identify myself as a member of LAN, because i’m not a “member”. Like the other people in the commenting section, i’m a commenter there. do you not know the difference between a poster in the comment section and one of their staff members? If that’s unclear, then is it really any wonder why you can’t form a coherent argument?

      Notice the improper use of ad hominem. I said your argument wasn’t stellar. It wasn’t. It wasn’t impressive, persuasive, or much more than rambling, repeating, and boring. Sorry you didn’t know the difference there either.

      But go ahead and let this sink in for another 3 months or so before you bother replying.

      *drops mic*

      Permalink
      • On May 10, 2014 at 8:54 pm Russell Crawford said:

        “Your arguments were addressed over a dozen times, of which you deleted…about a dozen of them. Why fake it like there’s no argument, when you couldn’t even take the time to bother reading, them, by your own admission.”

        You have made no valid arguments. When you post the same argument over and over when it has no merit, I delete some of them. I have given you enough rope to hang yourself, there is no need to let you continue the self abuse.

        “Also…it took you 3 months to respond. Did you waste that much time? You could have replied 2 months and 25 days ago.”

        Your arguments were childish and I did not have time, I was dealing with others pro lifers that have not made fools of themselves.

        “Your arguments were busted, your arguments are garbage logic that hold zero water.”

        More ad hominem whining. It is an ad hominem to avoid the question by using simple minded insults.

        “Just keep posting on your FB page, where no one actually reads it, other than that one guy who tells you that you’re full of it over and over.”

        I guess you have no arguments, right?

        :Next time, don’t take 3 months to reply to something. You’re a waste of time, with a non-argument for things all in your head.”

        More ad hominem evasions. If you have an argument, make it.

        “I didn’t identify myself as a member of LAN, because i’m not a “member”. Like the other people in the commenting section, i’m a commenter there. do you not know the difference between a poster in the comment section and one of their staff members? If that’s unclear, then is it really any wonder why you can’t form a coherent argument?”

        And that is why you have no arguments.

        “Notice the improper use of ad hominem. I said your argument wasn’t stellar. It wasn’t. It wasn’t impressive, persuasive, or much more than rambling, repeating, and boring. Sorry you didn’t know the difference there either.”

        You were using insults to avoid addressing the issues. That makes your comments ad hominem fallacies. If you can address the issues, then give it a try.

        “But go ahead and let this sink in for another 3 months or so before you bother replying.?

        You have never made a valid reply, why not start now. I am inviting you to explain why you kill innocent babies to save fetuses. Answer that or avoid the questions again.

        Permalink
        • On May 10, 2014 at 9:12 pm MarcusFenix said:

          “You have made no valid arguments.”

          Of course, you being the admin here, you get to pick and choose, and then delete, whatever you believe is a “valid” argument. You’ve been argued against here, and dozens of places. the only person who says the argument is invalid is you. The fact you deleted all of them and then called “no argument” speaks for itself.

          If my arguments were childish, you wouldn’t have replied at all. I think it’s more that you needed time to reply. Or your bored. Or, you want more arguments. I don’t have time to waste on reposting pages of arguments you’re just going to delete anyway.

          Saying your arguments are broken and hold no water isn’t a freaking ad hominem. Will you please educate yourself on what that means before you use them.

          “I guess you have no arguments, right?”

          Except..the ones you deleted? nope. No arguments. Not dozens of posts removed with nothing there, right? You’re a joke.

          Please, make more fallacious choices as the only possible ones…while stating in your primer that there are, in fact more. It’s fun to watch you contradict yourself.

          At least your reply didn’t take 3 months. You can keep saying “I win!”, while plugging your ears and not being able to argue properly. Just don’t have time for your crying right now.

          Permalink
          • On May 10, 2014 at 9:41 pm Russell Crawford said:

            {“You have made no valid arguments.”

            Of course, you being the admin here, you get to pick and choose, and then delete, whatever you believe is a “valid” argument. You’ve been argued against here, and dozens of places. the only person who says the argument is invalid is you. The fact you deleted all of them and then called “no argument” speaks for itself.}

            I deleted your repeated post of the same argument over and over. Your arguments failed and rather than correct your argument, you simply reposted.

            {If my arguments were childish, you wouldn’t have replied at all. I think it’s more that you needed time to reply. Or your bored. Or, you want more arguments. I don’t have time to waste on reposting pages of arguments you’re just going to delete anyway.}

            Do you have an argument?

            {Saying your arguments are broken and hold no water isn’t a freaking ad hominem. Will you please educate yourself on what that means before you use them.}

            Yes it is when the intent is to avoid making an real comment.

            {“I guess you have no arguments, right?”

            Except..the ones you deleted? nope. No arguments. Not dozens of posts removed with nothing there, right? You’re a joke.}

            You remain with no arguments.

            {Please, make more fallacious choices as the only possible ones…while stating in your primer that there are, in fact more. It’s fun to watch you contradict yourself.}

            You have a choice, you can save innocent babies or you can let them die and save a fetus instead.

            {At least your reply didn’t take 3 months. You can keep saying “I win!”, while plugging your ears and not being able to argue properly. Just don’t have time for your crying right now.}

            I will delete your next argument if it has no substance.
            Do you understand?

            Permalink
          • On May 10, 2014 at 10:35 pm Russell Crawford said:

            “No one has let a baby die. It was demonstrated, even using your own erroneous primer, that pro life people can work to help save a fetus and a baby…the two are not mutually and universally linked.”

            No you can’t work together to save a fetus and a baby. The fact is that “everyone” is dying. Do you understand that. The rate of death is 1.8 per second for born life and 8 per second for natural abortions. You cannot even see the natural abortions and you cannot find the born persons that are dying. You cannot know which women are going to abort until they try to abort.
            So you have multiple impossibilities to deal with. You don’t know who will abort so you must expend time to save them, and each second you spend you lose 1.8 born lives and 7 billion born people must be searched to find the 1.8 that will die. In addition the 250 million zygotes you choose to let die cannot even be seen and you don’t know who will have one in their body. With all the impossibilities you face saving either born life or unborn zygotes, you will waste time. And each second you waste, 1.8 born people die.

            Permalink
      • On May 10, 2014 at 8:55 pm Russell Crawford said:

        You have a choice Marcus, you can save innocent born babies or you can let them die and attempt to save a fake baby instead. You will of course let the real baby die, right?

        Permalink
        • On May 10, 2014 at 9:14 pm MarcusFenix said:

          No one has let a born baby die. You’re saying, last time, that everyone in the obit section of my local paper were “victims” and other insane accusations. It made no sense. Is that an ad hominem, to say your claims made no sense? So hard for you to tell, i know.

          No one has let a baby die. It was demonstrated, even using your own erroneous primer, that pro life people can work to help save a fetus and a baby…the two are not mutually and universally linked.

          Of course, your “stick fingers in ear, and say lalala” approach to the argument is noted. Thanks for playing!

          Permalink
          • On May 10, 2014 at 9:50 pm Russell Crawford said:

            “No one has let a born baby die. You’re saying, last time, that everyone in the obit section of my local paper were “victims” and other insane accusations. It made no sense. Is that an ad hominem, to say your claims made no sense? So hard for you to tell, i know.”

            Of course you have made the choice to let innocent babies die. I am sorry your IQ is to low to understand. Perhaps you can get someone to explain my writings to you.

            “No one has let a baby die. It was demonstrated, even using your own erroneous primer, that pro life people can work to help save a fetus and a baby…the two are not mutually and universally linked.”

            No you can’t work together to save a fetus and a baby. The fact is that “everyone” is dying. Do you understand that. The rate of death is 1.8 per second for born life and 8 per second for natural abortions. You cannot even see the natural abortions and you cannot find the born persons that are dying. You cannot know which women are going to abort until they try to abort.
            So you have multiple impossibilities to deal with. You don’t know who will abort so you must expend time to save them, and each second you spend you lose 1.8 born lives and 7 billion born people must be searched to find the 1.8 that will die. In addition the 250 million zygotes you choose to let die cannot even be seen and you don’t know who will have one in their body. With all the impossibilities you face saving either born life or unborn zygotes, you will waste time. And each second you waste, 1.8 born people die.
            I am sorry your IQ was to low to understand this conundrum. Perhaps you can find a friend that can help you understand.

            “Of course, your “stick fingers in ear, and say lalala” approach to the argument is noted. Thanks for playing!”

            Your ad hominem evasions are laughable. If you have an argument, make it.

            Permalink
  9. On March 20, 2014 at 8:11 pm jordan retro shoes said:

    jordan retro shoes

    chance at success. Obama 7 to 1? It should be at least double that, it is a sad

    Permalink
  10. On March 11, 2014 at 12:31 am cheap jordan shoes said:

    cheap jordan shoes

    initial whirlwind of activity forming teams and training hundreds of employees in statistics or new

    Permalink
  11. On March 11, 2014 at 12:30 am gamma blue 11s said:

    gamma blue 11s

    so that I can take it up to 100200 range at least. A request to Triond for listening to their

    Permalink
  12. On February 12, 2014 at 8:39 pm Russell Crawford said:

    It is so good that you have come back to chat.

    Permalink
  13. On February 12, 2014 at 5:41 pm DianaG2 said:

    I think perhaps we should not try to reason with Russell anymore? I don’t think there is any point.

    Permalink
    • On February 12, 2014 at 8:23 pm JDC said:

      To be honest, at this point most people see interacting with Russell as more of a form of entertainment than anything. I doubt most people here expect any sort of reasonable discussion.

      Permalink
      • On February 12, 2014 at 8:41 pm Russell Crawford said:

        So, you know “most” people. That would be about 4 billion at least. I wish I was as popular as you. Do they know that you have a choice, you can save them or let them die. Do they know you choose to let them die?

        Permalink
      • On February 13, 2014 at 10:50 pm DianaG2 said:

        Nobody should use a disabled person as a “form of entertainment.”

        That’s shameful and despicable. It’s not why we’re pro-life, and pro-life people should not do that.

        I am about to cry.

        Permalink
        • On February 14, 2014 at 4:08 am Russell Crawford said:

          You are right Diana, and pro lifers use the death of my son as a “form of entertainment.” Your protégé ,Marcus, has made fun of his death and you said nothing. So you are just as bad as him. You have a choice Diana, you can murder innocent babies or you can save them. Your choice is to murder innocent babies.

          Permalink
          • On February 14, 2014 at 4:28 pm DianaG2 said:

            I did not see a post where Marcus did that, but he’s certainly not my protege, in any event. Perhaps the reverse?

            I sometimes have to skim very quickly through posts and comments. (I have a lot of work and writing I have to do on the Internet.) I am very sorry, Russell.

            We are pro-life because we wish to protect and respect human dignity. I am of course very sorry about your son, dear Russell. I lost my little brother. That’s not quite the same, I know, but it’s horrible enough.

            I really hope Marcus did not say something mean about your serious loss? Maybe you misinterpreted? I don’t think Marcus would say that.

            Russell, I figure you must be in your ’70′s? Because you said your son was in his forties?

            I have a learning disability myself. People ridicule me frequently because I cannot speak or think clearly in person, by using the spoken word. I also have a very beloved family member who is forced to take psychiatric Rx. Those can make a person very confused and forgetful.

            But, Russell, I believe many disagree that pro-lifers are killing born children. A lot of people who are in favor of abortion try to say that, because they want to make us feel guilty and stupid. Also, there is no way to either prove or disprove what we might be doing if not trying to help moms keep their unborn babies.

            Pro-lifers try to help moms choose to allow their babies to live, grow, learn and be born into the world. I don’t think anything is wrong with that.

            In the Back to the Future trilogy, fictional characters talked a lot about what might have happened if this or that had been different in the past. Of course, Back to the Future is a work of fiction. We will never know anything in real life about that, because we cannot ever really trace a direct line from one event to another. There are too many variables.

            But, God lives outside of time. He asks us to do the right thing every moment, every day, as far as we can determine what that is. (We frequently don’t know for sure.)

            If you don’t believe in God, surely we must still see that all we have in this life (aside from our health) is right now. We have to make the best of it.

            Russell, do you have anyone to talk to about your son, or other things that you worry about? Is your wife still around? Other kids?

            God bless.

            Permalink
          • On February 14, 2014 at 7:55 pm Russell Crawford said:

            “I did not see a post where Marcus did that, but he’s certainly not my protege, in any event. Perhaps the reverse?”

            Well now you know, so what is your take?

            “We are pro-life because we wish to protect and respect human dignity.”
            The scientific fact is that you don’t protect and respect human dignity if you are pro life. You choose to save zygotes by letting innocent babies die.

            “But, Russell, I believe many disagree that pro-lifers are killing born children”

            You are talking about “opinion” and I am talking about scientific fact. This is not debatable.

            “Also, there is no way to either prove or disprove what we might be doing if not trying to help moms keep their unborn babies.”

            I am trying to help you understand how the world works. If you spend 1 second “saving” zygotes then in that second 1.8 innocent babies die.

            “Pro-lifers try to help moms choose to allow their babies to live, grow, learn and be born into the world. I don’t think anything is wrong with that.”

            If that were what you were doing then it would be great. But what is happening in the world is that 57 million born people will die this year. If you stop saving them to save a fetus, then the born life just continues to die.

            “In the Back to the Future trilogy, fictional characters talked a lot about what might have happened if this or that had been different in the past. Of course, Back to the Future is a work of fiction. We will never know anything in real life about that, because we cannot ever really trace a direct line from one event to another. There are too many variables.”

            There are a lot of variables in life as a whole, that is why we isolate and try to understand the “laws” that build the variables. One law is that there will always be more people dying than can be saved. Because that is true, you must choose whom to save. You may save either born babies or unborn zygotes.

            “But, God lives outside of time. He asks us to do the right thing every moment, every day, as far as we can determine what that is. (We frequently don’t know for sure.)”

            That is why you must investigate what I say and make up your mind to do the right thing. The scientific facts are easily verified.

            “If you don’t believe in God, surely we must still see that all we have in this life (aside from our health) is right now. We have to make the best of it.”

            I think you and I are on the same page here, I was pro life for over thirty years until it became clear that I actually have a choice, I can save innocent babies or I can let them die and continue to save zygotes, embryos and fetuses. My personal decision was to stop being “pro life” and begin to really save life. I hope you will examine the laws and change your affiliation from the pro life movement to the pro choice movement.

            “Russell, do you have anyone to talk to about your son, or other things that you worry about? Is your wife still around? Other kids?”

            Yes, I have a loving wife and we are clinging to each other. I lost a brother and a sister along with my Dad before my son died. So I grieve for them all.

            Permalink
          • On February 15, 2014 at 3:50 pm DianaG2 said:

            So sorry for those overwhelming losses, Russell.

            You and your dear wife must be great blessings and comfort to each other.

            Permalink
          • On February 15, 2014 at 7:46 pm Russell Crawford said:

            Thank you.
            I deleted your posts that consisted of no argument and only ad hominem fallacies. I cannot allow you to make personal attacks.

            Permalink
          • On February 15, 2014 at 8:09 pm MarcusFenix said:

            It’s fun watching you snowball someone else on only your word alone. Quite the echo chamber.

            “The scientific fact is that you don’t protect and respect human dignity
            if you are pro life. You choose to save zygotes by letting innocent
            babies die.”

            Ahh, and the misinformation keeps on flowing.

            “You are talking about “opinion” and I am talking about scientific fact. This is not debatable.”

            She disagrees, because unlike you, she’s well aware that no one is out murdering people as you claim.

            The rest of your post was pretty much the same tired song and dance, along with more personal props that aren’t part of the argument…a. red herring, if you will.

            Permalink
          • On February 15, 2014 at 9:00 pm Russell Crawford said:

            “It’s fun watching you snowball someone else on only your word alone. Quite the echo chamber.”

            That is a red herring fallacy. If you have something to contribute, then by all means make an argument.

            “The scientific fact is that you don’t protect and respect human dignity
            if you are pro life. You choose to save zygotes by letting innocent
            babies die.”

            Ahh, and the misinformation keeps on flowing.

            “You are talking about “opinion” and I am talking about scientific fact. This is not debatable.”

            She disagrees, because unlike you, she’s well aware that no one is out murdering people as you claim.

            The rest of your post was pretty much the same tired song and dance, along with more personal props that aren’t part of the argument…a. red herring, if you will.

            Permalink
          • On February 16, 2014 at 4:26 pm DianaG2 said:

            Thanks, Marcus.

            Yes, Russell just keeps repeating the same thing. There’s no logic. Perhaps another logic?

            Permalink
          • On February 16, 2014 at 6:07 pm Russell Crawford said:

            I repeat, you repeat, I repeat, you repeat.
            That is exactly what you would expect. If you keep making the same claims, you will get the same answer.

            You have a choice, Marcus, Diana, you can save an innocent baby or you can let it die and attempt to save a fetus. Your choice is to let innocent babies die.

            Now address that with something that is not a fallacy and you will get a different answer.

            Permalink
          • On May 5, 2014 at 2:33 pm coffeeman308 said:

            Russell, Russell, Russell- I am sorry that your son has passed away, I am also sorry that 1.8 people (you call them human babies) are also dying every second – even if many of them are 50 years old or older. If we allow abortions to continue at the same rate the number of humans dying each second will rise (there is not much we can do about the 1.8 every second as it is clear that we all are sinners and that the wages of sin is death.) I do believe you need help- maybe your grief has allowed the lies you state (that pro lifers are pro death- you know in your heart that a pro lifer can’t keep a person having a heart attack alive- there are Drs. for that, pro-lifers can pray though for the lost to know that the can have a hope for eternal life- I will pray for your mind to become clear to the truth. Once again I send sympathies for you and your family in the loss of your son. By the way the Father also sent His Son and he gave His life for your son and my son and all who believe.

            Permalink
          • On May 10, 2014 at 8:28 am Russell Crawford said:

            “Russell, Russell, Russell- I am sorry that your son has passed away, I am also sorry that 1.8 people (you call them human babies) are also dying every second – even if many of them are 50 years old or older.”
            You are simply taking things out of context. Your comment is worthless, I have never said a 50 year old is a baby.
            “If we allow abortions to continue at the same rate the number of humans dying each second will rise (there is not much we can do about the 1.8 every second as it is clear that we all are sinners and that the wages of sin is death.)”

            You can save life if you want to. Simply go here: http://www.poverty.com.

            “I do believe you need help- maybe your grief has allowed the lies you state (that pro lifers are pro death- you know in your heart that a pro lifer can’t keep a person having a heart attack alive- there are Drs. for that, pro-lifers can pray though for the lost to know that the can have a hope for eternal life- I will pray for your mind to become clear to the truth. Once again I send sympathies for you and your family in the loss of your son. By the way the Father also sent His Son and he gave His life for your son and my son and all who believe.”

            If you wanted to truly save life, you could. Simply join me in saving those who are killed by the pro life movement. Will you do that? Will you make the choice to save real life and stop trying to save fake life?

            Permalink
          • On February 15, 2014 at 8:06 pm MarcusFenix said:

            A form, i might add….you brought into the mix all on your own. Let’s not forget that little bit.

            Permalink
          • On February 15, 2014 at 9:16 pm Russell Crawford said:

            Marcus, I mentioned that I had a son that died. You questioned me about his death and I did not answer. You then said he shot himself in the head. He died from a heart attack at home. You intentionally lied about my son without provocation and with intent to hurt me, his widow and his daughter. Any normal person would have apologized, you did not. No sane person makes light of the death of a son to his father. You would have never done so to my face.

            Permalink
      • On February 14, 2014 at 12:27 am rosie said:

        Actually! I go to the Live Action News website when I want a good laugh. Especially the part on the cookie-cott! And how people are chasing after the Girl Scout girls calling them ‘whores’ and ‘baby-killers’. Inspirational!

        Permalink
        • On February 14, 2014 at 4:04 am Russell Crawford said:

          Rosie,

          As you can tell here, the only arguments that the Live Action News bunch have are baseless insults and ad hominem fallacies. Keep up the good work showing them for what they are. We can win this and outlaw the pro life movement if we can just keep them “explaining” their reasons for being pro life.
          There are 14 natural abortions each second. The pro life movement could choose to save any of those 14 and not interfere with a woman’s right to abortion. But that would not fulfill their goal of “putting women in their place.” This is about women, it is not about saving fetuses.

          The natural abortion rate is astronomical, of all conceptions, 70 percent die before the first trimester. The pro life movement could save them and never even get in a dispute from anyone. If the goal were to save babies, why not save those billions upon billions that are aborting naturally? http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/f/70percent.htm

          Permalink
      • On May 10, 2014 at 8:32 am Russell Crawford said:

        You have simply been a waste of time. If you have an argument lets discuss what you claim. Otherwise, give up.

        Permalink
    • On May 10, 2014 at 8:31 am Russell Crawford said:

      You haven’t reasoned yet. You have a choice DianaG2, you can save innocent babies or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let babies die.

      Permalink
  14. On January 28, 2014 at 7:56 pm myintx said:

    What a load of b s… “Therefore one must choose whom they will save, they may save a fetus or they may save an innocent baby, child or adult, but they cannot save both. ” BOTH? I see 4 choices here. DUH. It should read “they may save a fetus or a baby or a child or an adult or an elderly person. If I choose to save an elderly person, who dies? A fetus? A baby? OH NO – I guess we have to let all elderly people die so we can focus on just babies right?

    “Therefore an attempt to force the birth of any fetus leads to the death of a born person” – So, what if a pro-lifer “gently persuades” a woman to carry her unborn child to term instead of forces.. Does that lead to the death of a born person? What if the woman decides ON HER OWN to walk away from a killing clinic and give birth – is that leading to the ‘death of a born person’? These so-called ‘laws’ are the biggest load of carp I’ve ever seen.

    Permalink
    • On February 2, 2014 at 5:21 pm Russell Crawford said:

      “What a load of b s… “Therefore one must choose whom they will save, they may save a fetus or they may save an innocent baby, child or adult, but they cannot save both. ” BOTH?”

      It is impossible to save “both” the unborn and the born. There are 7 billion people dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. It is mathematically impossible for a single save them all. The main reason of course is because we all die. So we must choose whom to save.

      “I see 4 choices here. DUH. It should read “they may save a fetus or a baby or a child or an adult or an elderly person.”

      There are only two groups from which to choose, the born or the unborn.

      “If I choose to save an elderly person, who dies? A fetus? A baby? OH NO – I guess we have to let all elderly people die so we can focus on just babies right? ”

      If you save a baby, child or adult of any age, then you have saved a born person.

      {“Therefore an attempt to force the birth of any fetus leads to the death of a born person” – So, what if a pro-lifer “gently persuades” a woman to carry her unborn child to term instead of forces..}

      If you spend one second “gently persuading” a woman to carry her unborn child then in that second 1.8 born people die. You could have spent your time “gently persuading” people to save born people.
      “Does that lead to the death of a born person?”

      Of course it does.

      “What if the woman decides ON HER OWN to walk away from a killing clinic and give birth – is that leading to the ‘death of a born person’?”

      No, it is her decision to make. It is not your business.

      “These so-called ‘laws’ are the biggest load of carp I’ve ever seen.”

      Your choice is to let innocent babies die, so of course your decision is to hide your actions.

      Permalink
      • On February 2, 2014 at 10:05 pm myintx said:

        You’re saying if I talk a woman into not killing her unborn child, then 1.8 people die, but if a woman decides on her own to not kill her unborn child, then 1.8 people don’t die. Again, these so-called laws are the biggest load of carp I’ve seen out of the pro-abortion movement.

        Permalink
        • On February 2, 2014 at 10:41 pm Russell Crawford said:

          No, I didn’t say that. I said pro lifers murder innocent babies in an effort to save fetuses.
          I am saying you can choose to save an innocent baby or you can spend your time trying to talk a woman into not aborting. Most of the time she will laugh at you and when she chooses to not abort a zygote, the zygote will die anyway 70 percent of the time. So you are just letting born babies die.

          Most people can understand you are simply killing a born baby in an attempt to boost your own self aggrandizement. You have no interest in saving life, or you are not really aware of what you are doing. Either way, you are killing life, not saving life.

          Permalink
          • On February 3, 2014 at 8:44 am myintx said:

            Most of the time, by the time a woman realizes she is pregnant, the human being inside of her is not a zygote anymore.
            How many born babies have you let die by posting your nonsense on message boards?

            Permalink
          • On February 3, 2014 at 3:20 pm Russell Crawford said:

            I have saved life while you are killing life. You have a choice to save innocent babies or to intentionally let them die. Pro lifers intentionally let innocent babies die.

            Permalink
          • On February 3, 2014 at 8:50 pm myintx said:

            So, my posting on this forum is killing while yours are saving? What kind of drugs are you on?

            Permalink
          • On February 6, 2014 at 7:56 am myintx said:

            Thanks Marcus.
            Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been banned from a pro-abortion web-site for simply refuting a lame excuse to kill unborn children or posting my views.
            You keep up the good fight too!

            Permalink
          • On February 6, 2014 at 8:29 am rccrawford said:

            You haven’t been banned. You have been invited to submit questions and to answer my questions when asked.

            Here is a question for you:

            You have a choice, you may save innocent babies or you may let them die and save fetuses instead. Which do you choose?

            If you answer “both” then how will you save the born babies that die while you attempt to save fetuses?

            How will you ensure that you will actually save a “zygote” such that it becomes a baby?

            Permalink
        • On February 2, 2014 at 11:04 pm Russell Crawford said:

          “You’re saying if I talk a woman into not killing her unborn child, then 1.8 people die,”

          No, 1.8 are dying per second and you choose not to save them. No 1.8 total, but 1.8 per second die because of you.

          “but if a woman decides on her own to not kill her unborn child, then 1.8 people don’t die.”

          No, people are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second, they still die, but she does not claim to be saving life and has no duty to save life. You claim to be saving life and are therefore obligated to save life. She has no duty to save life, you do, that is the difference.

          ” Again, these so-called laws are the biggest load of carp I’ve seen out of the pro-abortion movement.”

          The laws prove you have a duty to save life, but choose instead to let life die. That is insane. You claim to save life, so save real live babies, don’t let them die.

          Permalink
        • On February 2, 2014 at 11:19 pm Russell Crawford said:

          Lets talk about who has a duty to save life and who does not have a duty to save life.
          A pro lifer claims to save life, so pro lifers have a duty to save life. The “Law of Charity” proves that pro lifers do not save life, they simply kill one life in an attempt to force the birth of fetuses. Why do they let born babies die? Pro lifers let babies die because are addicted to money and self aggrandizement.

          Pregnant women do not claim to save life. They simply are pregnant and have no duty at all to save any life. Because they have no duty to save life, they are not required to attempt to save born people or fetuses.

          Other people do not claim to save life. And they are not required to save life.

          Permalink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>