Tail-
A - a beating heart is meaningless. It's a muscle like any other. It will be replaceable by a machine at some point in the future so if you link that to life you're gonna have some issues.
B- huh? They cost you if you want them. But yes, they don't cost Joe taxpayer anything if he doesn't get one... And they do likely save him money
C- donations do pay for abortions. And possibly non government medical services reimbursement (don't know how that breaks down)
D- one could even argue planned Parenthood pays for some otherwise federally funded services
E- I agree.
F- I already said I think an abortion should be an option for either party. Both parties should be able to pull the plug.
G- see my above answer. But I get it, this is just you whining like a little snowflake.

victor809 wrote:

Don't worry bgz... Victor6969 was the Victor that was going to kill the 4th coming of Jesus.

(Little known fact... Jesus has already returned twice. The first second coming was cut short when he was lynched for looking at a white woman in the south in the 1700s. Ironically, the person who killed him would have been aborted if his mother had an opportunity. The second second coming was just an unfortunate choice of time and location as he was born Aug 5, 1945 in Hiroshima Japan.)

victor809 wrote:

Tail... I'm assuming you were being sarcastic when you stated "lets see what we learned : purposely killing a beating heart is not killing at all"

That sounds like sarcasm,and I responded as it sounded. If you were being serious and you actually believe that then I agree with you.

victor809 wrote:

No. My point is that a heart, while if present is a sign a person might be alive, it is not itself the definition of life.

The point is choose a different organ.

The anti abortion groups love talking about heartbeats, maybe that wasn't your point, but mine is simply that a heart is a primitive correlation to life which people have clung to since back when our medical knowledge was very poor.

victor809 wrote:

I'm not offended by you thinking it should be an important choice.

But that's for you.

For someone else it isn't a decision which requires a second of thought.

Is that cavalier? Or is it absolute certainty that one does not under any circumstances want to be a parent? If you know yourself well enough to know that, why spend any time wringing your hands and wailing? This isn't ex post facto justification.

Just because an ultrasound had meaning to you doesn't mean it should have meaning to anyone else. It meant something to you because you were trying to get to that point, and what you saw was a future you wanted. That same scrap of paper doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't want that future. It's absolutely meaningless. Trust me.

victor809 wrote:

Just because an ultrasound had meaning to you doesn't mean it should have meaning to anyone else. It meant something to you because you were trying to get to that point, and what you saw was a future you wanted. That same scrap of paper doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't want that future. It's absolutely meaningless. Trust me.

victor809 wrote:

Tail.... If you think that's a rant then you're more of a sensitive snowflake than I've said you are.

I don't pretend to know why people make the decisions they do. Honestly I don't know why most people have children. It makes zero sense to me, and I've always assumed a huge percentage do it simply because they think they're supposed to. But I'm likely wrong.

Adoption in my mind isn't an acceptable resolution. It's better than actually having a child, but has significant drawbacks when compared to abortion. It may be for others, not for me. I see two problems, 1- the mother still has to go through the wear and tear on her body, the weight gain, the restriction of activities, the stretch marks. 2- it still creates another child in this world which doesn't really need any more. (Yes I know everyone wants a cute white baby, but the world doesn't actually need more babies. If someone wants a kid that bad they should help the older ones out).

victor809 wrote:

To paraphrase:

Tail, if you think that's a rant, you've not read anything on cbid before!

tailgater wrote:

Question: How does categorizing your objections to my posted opinions as a "rant" classify me as a snowflake?
You can do better than that.

snowflake wrote:

Opel... Meaning is an internal thing. Movements or social constructs may be external, but the meaning they have will always be internal. You can make someone do something. But you can't make it mean something to them....


(Actually.... That's a lie. You can, through proper application of demagoguery.... But that's what we call fanaticism.)

victor809 wrote:

fify


you sound sensitive. are you being sensitive?

victor809 wrote:

Yall are all monsters.

jjanecka wrote: