Home - List All Discussions

The true and clear definition of abortion.

by: AshMarie88

Abortion: The slow, deadly mutilation of an unborn child. Includes sucking their little body parts thru a tube into a jar, taking them out of the womb and putting them in water to drown, letting them drown in salt solutions in the womb, or sticking huge needles in their skulls to suck out their brains and collapse the skulls.
And people are perfectly okay with doing this. I wonder why they're only okay with doing this to the unborn and not the born.

reply from: scopia1982

I would say that alot of them are, but they just wont publicly admit it.

reply from: faithman

Just give um time sis, just give um time!!!

reply from: yoda

A fair number of them are already advocating killing babies up to 30 days old, and some as long as 2 years. I'm debating an Australian probabykilling advocate on another forum who uses the 2 years figure, because he claims that "most women have PPD for that long". Some logic, eh?

reply from: nsanford

I don't believe this is the correct definition. A fair defintion of abortion does not just include artificial abortion, it also includes spontaneous abortion. And believe it or not, abortion does not have to do with humans. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, whether a human one or not. And I don't believe most abortions are slow. And look up the definition of an abortion anywhere else. I doubt they use the term "unborn life".

reply from: AshMarie88

Go get yourself an education in biology. You obviously don't know much about abortion or reproduction.
Spontaneous abortion is the expellation of an unviable baby, NATURALLY... Induced abortion is the LITERAL KILLING of a baby. When you "terminate a pregnancy", you're killing the child.

reply from: AshMarie88

If abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, then murder is the termination of a body.

reply from: faithman

OH heck missy. when has a pro-abort let facts and truth get in the way of slaughtering womb children?

reply from: nsanford

Did I say otherwise. If you wanted to define abortion that way, you should have said it was a definition of induced abortion.
Still seem to have trouble with your definition. Since when is abortion defined as the death of and unborn child? And I mean medically.

reply from: AshMarie88

Did I say otherwise. If you wanted to define abortion that way, you should have said it was a definition of induced abortion.
Still seem to have trouble with your definition. Since when is abortion defined as the death of and unborn child? And I mean medically.
Since when is abortion defined as the termination of JUST a pregnancy?

reply from: bradensmommy

You know what would happen if the truth got out about the realities of abortion? Planned Parenthood would be out of business and the pro-aborts would be pissed!!!
Why do you think the pro-aborts want everyone to keep thinking a fetus is a clump of cells?

reply from: donkeybong

i dunno, bradensmommy. whenever I hear someone close to me is considering having an abortion, I kindly let them know the facts that they're destroying innocent life. but they tend to follow through anyway. :-( i doubt planned parenthood would be out of business, because everyone knows the procedure itself is already horrific, but as it's the only way to get rid of a baby...

reply from: faithman

The reason they don't show the ultra soud screen to killer moms in the abortion clinics, is because most women considering an abortion see such images decide not to abort. The image at www.iamaperson.info does a real good job.

reply from: 1003

and they decide not to abort based on emotion, not science, faithman.

reply from: faithman

SSSSOOOO true science says kill your child at all cost so planned parenthood can pay the light bill, Right? So we don't show a woman the factual information on cutting edge scientific machines, because we can't have the facts getting in the way, and thats science? Science is observable facts. So we are not going to allow women to observe the facts in the name of science? Are you really that stupid?

reply from: 1003

at the risk of sounding elitist, no, women should not have access to that kind of information. i'm believer in censorship, when it is fit. emotionally unstable women going through life-changing experiences are in no position to deal with raw information. we must interpret it for them.

reply from: faithman

EEEEE. True colors are shown!!!! Women have the right to choose, but only with the information you provide!!!!! Women are just too stupid to see life in the womb and make a discission based on the information at hand!!!!! So much for free speach !!! You gals!!! we know how emotional you are!!! You just can't handle factual information poor dears!!!

reply from: bradensmommy

AHA!!! Just my f-in point! The abortion clinics would highly recommend you for thier poster child for sure!
"As long as the moms who want to abort has no evidence of a living human being, we are in the money!!"
People like you make me sick
Next time they decide to do a remake of the Wizard of Oz, make sure you try to cast as the Wizard.

reply from: yoda

Main Entry: abor·tion Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abortion

reply from: yoda

"Medically"? Since when is there a special medical definition for the act of killing a human being?
What kind of perverted question is that?

reply from: yoda

And I'll bet that you think the same thing for women who kill their born kids, right?
Make it so that they don't have to look at their victims, right? Wow, you're all heart!

reply from: faithman

"Medically"? Since when is there a special medical definition for the act of killing a human being?
What kind of perverted question is that?
Homocide will do. Don't you think?

reply from: faithman

AHA!!! Just my f-in point! The abortion clinics would highly recommend you for thier poster child for sure!
"As long as the moms who want to abort has no evidence of a living human being, we are in the money!!"
People like you make me sick
Next time they decide to do a remake of the Wizard of Oz, make sure you try to cast as the Wizard.
F-n> hhhhmmmm. now what could that mean. Firetruck-n point... fetal-n point...finger lick-n point.... Famer -n the dale point....

reply from: donkeybong

haha, i like fingerlickin. Just my fingerlickin point!

reply from: faithman

You can have it, and I'll steal cripple stix.

reply from: reggyjade

You know, you really set a bad example for the people on the right side.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, reggyjade. By all means, please show us how to set a "good" example, okay?

reply from: faithman

Me feelin bullish again

reply from: AshMarie88

How do you know? Many women change their minds after learning about fetal development, seeing photos of the developing fetus, etc.
It's both emotion AND science.

reply from: faithman

How do you know? Many women change their minds after learning about fetal development, seeing photos of the developing fetus, etc.
It's both emotion AND science.
Dosen't science deal with emotion? Isn't physcology the scientific study of mental and emotional health? Isn't it a fact that abortion is proven to damage a woman mentally emotionally and physically? Of course like the science of ultra sound, we aren't allowed to look at the facts, now are we?

reply from: nsanford

Exactly. Does that say anything about induced abortion? It doesn't even use the term "unborn child". Which is the point I was trying to make. Her definition is incorrect.

reply from: nsanford

Number one, I don't want anyone to think a fetus is a "clump of cells". AshMarie defined abortion incorrectly, and was trying to put up the right definiton.
Number two, I doubt Planned Parenthood would go out of business if people knew the "realities" of abortion. People know smoking is bad for them and others, and still do it anyway. Same mentality with abortion. It's all about themselves.

reply from: nsanford

I agree with the principal of what you said. Major decisions should not be made solely on an emotional basis.
However, as someone said before, women who see ultrasounds and learn about fetal development usually make their decisions based on emotion and science. And in the end, the best decision is made when their is a mixture of the two.
And just a question, who is we? You say we must interpret information for them. What gives us the right to do so?

reply from: AshMarie88

Number one, I don't want anyone to think a fetus is a "clump of cells". AshMarie defined abortion incorrectly, and was trying to put up the right definiton.
Number two, I doubt Planned Parenthood would go out of business if people knew the "realities" of abortion. People know smoking is bad for them and others, and still do it anyway. Same mentality with abortion. It's all about themselves.
You think the correct definition of abortion is the "removal of cells" or JUST "termination of PREGNANCY", not termination of a human or mutilation of a human.

reply from: nsanford

No, I don't. I've said that others believe this, but I've never said I believe that.
Please, accuse me when you have your facts straight.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. Does that say anything about induced abortion? It doesn't even use the term "unborn child". Which is the point I was trying to make. Her definition is incorrect.
You're just really sad when it comes to logic, ns.
Why should a dictionary have to include every single term you are disputing? Do you think dictionaries exist to settle arguments? No, you have to show a little intelligence on your own, and look up such terms as "unborn child":
American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.bartleby.com/61/
Unborn: ADJECTIVE : 1. Not yet born: "an unborn child."
Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ Unborn:
Pronunciation: (un-bôrn') -adj. 2. not yet delivered; still existing in the mother's womb: an unborn baby.
MSN Encarta Dictionary: http://dictionary.msn.com/ Unborn:
1. not born yet: not yet born, but usually already conceived and gestating "behavior that could benefit the unborn child"

reply from: yoda

That's a rather silly statement, ns. ALL decisions are made on an "emotional basis". Even when we use logic to analyze things, in the end it's our emotional reaction to the facts as we see them that guides all our decisions.

reply from: nsanford

You seem to be using them that way. Whenever someone disputes that a fetus is a person, you pull out the dictionary.
Okay. Fine, whatever. But look up a definiton of abortion. Will you see the words "unborn child" in the definiton. That was my point.

reply from: nsanford

That's a rather silly statement, ns. ALL decisions are made on an "emotional basis". Even when we use logic to analyze things, in the end it's our emotional reaction to the facts as we see them that guides all our decisions.
Good point. I should have said decisions should not be made on a purely emotional basis. That is true. We must also consider the facts.

reply from: bradensmommy

ns, you seem to have a bad case of John Kerry...
Why you ask? BECAUSE YOU SAY ONE THING THEN REWORD WHAT YOU SAY AGAIN...or you flip-flop....
Your words misunderstand everyone. Keep on track so us intelligent people can understand what the heck you are trying to say.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So you don't think pregnant women should be shown sonograms because they might decide nt to abort? How anti-baby ARE you, exactly?!
An embryo/fetus IS an unborn child.

reply from: yoda

You seem to be using them that way. Whenever someone disputes that a fetus is a person, you pull out the dictionary.
That's true. I should have said "ONLY to settle arguments".
Why do you insist on being spoon fed everything? Can't you make a simple logical deduction? IF an unborn child is present during an abortion, how can it NOT be killed?

reply from: yoda

Ooooo, that's cold....... but true.

reply from: faithman

Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop...

reply from: scopia1982

According to the law and medical ethics, a patient has the RIGHT TO ALL information relating to the procedue she is having done. Particularly, an ELECTIVE procedure, it is considered extremely unethical to perform a procedure on someone who is emotionally unstable as you call them. A good example would be a plastic surgeon, he will not due a procedure on a person who is unstable. An abortionists on the other hand has no sense of ethics, all they care about is $$ and will do whatever it takes to make a quick buck. If the woman is too emotionally unstable to be given information on the procedure, than she is too emotionally stable to have an abortion. INFORMED consent, everyone has a right to deal with it.

reply from: yoda

Of course, but 1003 wants to substitute his judgement for theirs, and take away their control over their own lives. He wants to make that life or death decision for them, just like women make that decision for their own baby when they have it killed.
And that's his idea of "choice"?

reply from: Tam

ROFL! nice. keep 'em in the dark so they don't know the nature of their actions until it's too late.

reply from: Tam

Not sure who you're talking to or what you're talking about, but welcome to the forum anyway.

reply from: yoda

Just a shot in the dark, I guess, from the mystery stranger "Ole shoot and run".

reply from: faithman

Boy, ole scum bag maggot proabort punk 1oo3 really stepped in it didn't he? They always get in trouble when they are honest. Procoice as long as it's his choice. I guess punks just can't help themselves. They just gotta tell everyone what to do. Ain't it funny who these little boyz want to accuse us of what they do?

reply from: yoda

I don't know how anyone could advocate aborting women who don't know what is being done to them and their babies. How paternalistic can one be? How patronizing towards women? How low an opinion of women!

reply from: faithman

AAAWWW come on yoda. How can you be so mean to a heartless, woman hating, scum bag pro-abort maggot punk. You must try to luv them and reason with them.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, you're right. I just don't know how to coddle baby-killers. And I don't want to know.

reply from: holopaw

Humans have emotions. What is your point? Can you give me a reason why a mother should totally disregard emotion?

reply from: yoda

An excellent question, holopaw. Probabykilling advocates frequently try to disparage emotions as being somehow "inferior to science", when in fact they are what guides us in how we use science. While we value emotions like love, faith, charity, honesty, compassion, etc., the probabykilling advocates insist that we must rid ourselves of all such "distractions" in order to consider the practice of killing babies.
No doubt. Only a cold, emotionless "heart of stone" could embrace such an act.

reply from: faithman

Isn't phycology the scientific study of emotion?

reply from: faithman

An excellent question, holopaw. Probabykilling advocates frequently try to disparage emotions as being somehow "inferior to science", when in fact they are what guides us in how we use science. While we value emotions like love, faith, charity, honesty, compassion, etc., the probabykilling advocates insist that we must rid ourselves of all such "distractions" in order to consider the practice of killing babies.
No doubt. Only a cold, emotionless "heart of stone" could embrace such an act.
I guess vulcans would make good abortionist.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Depends on what type -- neuropsych is the study of cognitive processes, psycholinguistics is the study of culture, philosophy and language, abnormal psych is the big emotion type. That's what my mama practiced (and it involved conseling post-abortive suffering women.)

reply from: tabithamarcotte

What's your point? Just because you are a stone-hearted mind-numbed robot doesn't mean we all are.

reply from: faithman

What's your point? Just because you are a stone-hearted mind-numbed robot doesn't mean we all are.
SSSSOOOO letting a woman "observe the facts" of cutting edge science[ ultra sound, fiber optic photography] is unscientific, because they may have an emotional responce? Now don't swallow that tail or you will turn wrong side out. at least not unless you take a picture. that would be unscientific, but a good laugh any way. arf arf

reply from: bradensmommy

What's your point? Just because you are a stone-hearted mind-numbed robot doesn't mean we all are.
SSSSOOOO letting a woman "observe the facts" of cutting edge science[ ultra sound, fiber optic photography] is unscientific, because they may have an emotional responce? Now don't swallow that tail or you will turn wrong side out. at least not unless you take a picture. that would be unscientific, but a good laugh any way. arf arf
Most pro-choicers don't want the woman to have any facts because it takes away thier "choice" of killing thier child and who wants that?!? <sarcasm>
Plus, where would pp get thier money from other than the rest of the pro-aborts??

reply from: jelaine

by yodavater
I've been called "baby lover" by prochoice persons as though that is an insult. Why wouldn't anyone love babies....after all little children and babies are the only ones who truly love unconditionally, in my opinion.

reply from: faithman

some "insults" are badges of honor.

reply from: yoda

An honor indeed. I've been labeled "fetocentric", and even that is an honor when one considers that human fetuses are being killed like vermin.

reply from: faithman

The left always trys to demonize folk who tell the truth. If proabort maggot scum bags are squawling, it's a good thing. If you provoke a rattle snake enough, they always bite themselves.

reply from: AshMarie88

I've been called "baby lover" by prochoice persons as though that is an insult. Why wouldn't anyone love babies....after all little children and babies are the only ones who truly love unconditionally, in my opinion.
They think that's an insult? HA. If we're baby lovers they must be baby haters.
And every pro-lifer still gets called pro-fetus... Very well, they must be the opposite.

reply from: Tam

I doubt it. The pro-abortion arguments are so illogical that I doubt a vulcan would buy into them.

reply from: faithman

I doubt it. The pro-abortion arguments are so illogical that I doubt a vulcan would buy into them.
Fair enough. Live long and prosper womb children

reply from: yoda

Exactly!
That means they are anti-life, anti-fetus, and anti-baby.

reply from: faithman

You forgot anti-inteligence

reply from: yoda

Yes, and anti-academic when it comes to the meaning of words, preferring instead to make them up as they go on their merry babykilling way. BTW, "intelligence' has two "L's".........

reply from: faithman

Thanks. Have always been a bad speller. Product of public education don't ya know.

reply from: yoda

Yep! That's why I use spellcheckers!

reply from: faithman

I do too, when one is availible. there dosn't seem to be one where ya post, unless I am just not seeing it?

reply from: yoda

No, not built in. You can find them for free on the internet, but you have to install them yourself.

reply from: faithman

may be a little difficult for us techno challenged.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics