Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel;

Unlike conservatives, we can take the good and disagree with the bad without throwing out the whole person.

General statement much?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

General statement much?

Yes but consider who she's talking to...

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes but consider who she's talking to...

Exactly, and I was responding to an extremely general statement.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes but consider who she's talking to...

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Exactly, and I was responding to an extremely general statement.

Fair point.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes but consider who she's talking to...

This from the person who picks fights constantly with other posters simply because one does not agree with her/him.

You are incapable of conversing with someone who disagrees with you.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

This from the person who picks fights constantly with other posters simply because one does not agree with her/him.

You are incapable of conversing with someone who disagrees with you.

Oh yes, this wasn't an example of you trying to pick a fight at all. Learn to respond to the issue and you'll get taken more seriously.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Oh yes, this wasn't an example of you trying to pick a fight at all. Learn to respond to the issue and you'll get taken more seriously.

I do believe that you are the one who mentioned that the child was a fetus until it exits the birth canal. If that is your positon then there are no rights confered to a "fetus" and a woman may choose to abort the "fetus" up to the time it exits the womb. This is an issue in which I have responded. Now I may have completely misunderstood one of your previous posts but here it is.

"There's no safe place to draw a line, as long as a fetus is dependent upon the woman's body to live, there is no ethical reason to force her to use her body to support another human life." - DF

If this is truly your position I stand by my statements. If not please feel free to correct me. I can only go by what is written.

Bottomline - I believe the child has a right to life while in the womb and you believe the "fetus" does not. I am sure I will not change your or others minds but so what?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I do believe that you are the one who mentioned that the child was a fetus until it exits the birth canal. If that is your positon then there are no rights confered to a "fetus" and a woman may choose to abort the "fetus" up to the time it exits the womb. This is an issue in which I have responded. Now I may have completely misunderstood one of your previous posts but here it is.

"There's no safe place to draw a line, as long as a fetus is dependent upon the woman's body to live, there is no ethical reason to force her to use her body to support another human life." - DF

If this is truly your position I stand by my statements. If not please feel free to correct me. I can only go by what is written.

Bottomline - I believe the child has a right to life while in the womb and you believe the "fetus" does not. I am sure I will not change your or others minds but so what?

So why post irrelevant material about Margaret Sanger or South Park? If you realize that we're at an impasse, then so be it. I can respect that you have your beliefs, but when you impose that upon a woman and tell her what she can or must do with HER body at any point in time, then I'm going to fight it.

Abortions will ideally be rare, late-term abortions are already incredibly rare. Trying to draw a hard and fast line in the sand is less productive than working on the other factors involved.

And this isn't even getting into providing adequate support for and removing the shame factor from single mothers. If we stop shaming and we start supporting these women, they're less likely to turn to abortion. And it's not just single mothers, financial reasons are a motivation behind abortion for all women, among other things. Instead of trying to ban abortion, which leads to more unsafe situations, increasing other supports will decrease the need for abortion.

Ironically, however, the people who fight the most for the "right to life" and the people who argue for cutting social supports seem to have more overlap than not.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So why post irrelevant material about Margaret Sanger or South Park?

I posted about Margaret Sanger because many previous posts revolved around PP and how much good they were doing. Many were extolling its virtue. Some were also talking about how PP made a goodly percentage of its $$$ from abortion services. My point is/was that even the founder was not an abortion defender/advocate. She certainly had other idiosyncracies such as a belief in eugenics and that some people were inferior etc. but even she was opposed to abortion and felt it was taking a life.

I don't believe I posted anything about South Park. I never watch that show. I could be wrong but I do not remember that particular post.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I don't believe I have ever mentioned a soul in any post. I really don't believe I have seen others who have posted about a soul either but I could be wrong. I certainly don't consider a heartbeat to be an "imbued" characteristic as we all generally have to have one in order to live. Maybe those who believe in the importance of a "woman's right to choose" lack a heart but not a heartbeat.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

This from the person who picks fights constantly with other posters simply because one does not agree with her/him.

You are incapable of conversing with someone who disagrees with you.

Is this an example of your great capacity of conversing with someone you disagree with? If it is, you FAIL. Calling someone heartless because they see the other side of the issue is pretty low.