Magee Hospital performs ABORTION (pediatrician, child, water)

[dugdogmaster]

Originally Posted by Colddiamond102

I have no problem with others having their own beliefs. What I DO have a problem with is the idea of banning such procedures, thereby blocking persons such as myself of a safe option to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Trust me, there are MANY other ways to end one, but they are not only deadly to the intended party, but also potentially deadly to the one carrying the intended party.

If a woman doesnt want a baby badly enough, she WILL get rid of it by either fair means or foul.

I never said I want to have it banned

[dugdogmaster]

This conversation calls for some green

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by ainulinale

And still you offer no support for your opinion, just your own belief as if it carries credence because you said it.

It's common sense. It's an unfinished human. It hasn't developed. It can't live outside the host. I have offered all of those as support for my opinion, which also happens to be based on facts.

Why is talking to religionists always like reasoning with a brick wall?

[dugdogmaster]

Because it's religion

[Colddiamond102]

Originally Posted by dugdogmaster

I never said I want to have it banned

No, you didnt. However, the OP has said that he/she WOULD like it banned. I apologize for making it seem like that was aimed at you.

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by dugdogmaster

This conversation calls for some green

What kind of green? The kind of green I want badly right now and can't have because a)I currently have no connections and b) my new job is analyzing my pee on Monday and c) both a and b, because certain moralizing do-gooders banned it?

If it's some other kind of green, then never mind. I don't want to open that can of worms here anyways.

[Colddiamond102]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

What kind of green? The kind of green I want badly right now and can't have because a)I currently have no connections and b) my new job is analyzing my pee on Monday and c) both a and b, because certain moralizing do-gooders banned it?

If it's some other kind of green, then never mind. I don't want to open that can of worms here anyways.

Oh gawd...TMI!!

[dugdogmaster]

Originally Posted by Colddiamond102

No, you didnt. However, the OP has said that he/she WOULD like it banned. I apologize for making it seem like that was aimed at you.

It's cool

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

It's common sense.

Obviously not if there is such a huge debate over it.

Originally Posted by creepsinc

It's an unfinished human.

So is a ten year old. Should we execute pre-teens? Middle-agers?

Originally Posted by creepsinc

It hasn't developed.

Same argument as the last.

Originally Posted by creepsinc

It can't live outside the host.

I've already refuted this. There are siamese twins who can't live without their sibling. Physical attachment does not define humanity. Dependency does not define humanity otherwise children would not be considered humans. Thus, your argument is reduced to what? since its inside a person its not human? why?

Originally Posted by creepsinc

I have offered all of those as support for my opinion, which also happens to be based on facts.

Facts without reason.

Originally Posted by creepsinc

Why is talking to religionists always like reasoning with a brick wall?

I think you need to check your own logic buddy.

[dugdogmaster]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

What kind of green? The kind of green I want badly right now and can't have because a)I currently have no connections and b) my new job is analyzing my pee on Monday and c) both a and b, because certain moralizing do-gooders banned it?

If it's some other kind of green, then never mind. I don't want to open that can of worms here anyways.

I have no clue what you mean by some other kind of green. So yes, your first thoughts. And yes, moralizing do-gooders suck