Killing .?!

90% in the first trimester, like someone said earlier this week.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Republicans sure seem to enjoy killing,don't they?

[b]Yeah, they're regular Engines of Death compared to the all-life-is-sacred Democrats who are hell-bent on keeping this going:

Any comment on the actual topic which is last night's GOP debate or are you just going to try and hijack the thread? Who did you like. Who didn't you like? Proposals you agree with or those you don't?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

[b]Yeah, they're regular Engines of Death compared to the all-life-is-sacred Democrats who are hell-bent on keeping this going:

Any comment on the actual topic which is last night's GOP debate or are you just going to try and hijack the thread? Who did you like. Who didn't you like? Proposals you agree with or those you don't?

You brought up the subject of those who enjoy killing.
I followed your lead.
And, once again, you whine about it.

Again...Any actual comment as to the topics in the debate? Who did you like. Who didn't you like? Proposals you agree with or those you don't?

Any chance of getting an honest answer out of you?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Any comment on the actual topic which is last night's GOP debate or are you just going to try and hijack the thread? Who did you like. Who didn't you like? Proposals you agree with or those you don't?

[b]I didn't watch it, nor did I read any transcripts, nor am I hijacking anything.

Well that conveniently lets you off the hook,doesn't it? How do you get your information? Spoon fed by Fox or Limbecile?

Artie60438 wrote:

Quote :

Any chance of getting an honest answer out of you?

[b]You've gotten an honest answer out of me.
Again, just because you don't like my answer does not in any way shape or form qualify me as one who refused to answer your question.

You _Never_ answered my question.
The question that if the primary were held today which announced candidate would you be voting for?
Do you even know who's running?

happy jack wrote:

KarenT wrote:

90% in the first trimester, like someone said earlier this week.

If that figure, for what it's worth, makes you feel better, then more power to you.
That still leaves close to 5,000,000 not in the first trimester.

Yeah. Well I can't speak for anyone else, but to me, what's most important is whether a fetus is viable. Like Karen said earlier, it's a question of whether the fetus can survive outside the womb. IIRC, that's not even possible until around 26 weeks or so. That's 2 weeks into the third trimester.

So the real question is "how many abortions occur after viability?" That's a very small number.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

Quote :

Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.

IMHO, there has to be a really compelling reason to have an abortion after the fetus is viable. Roe and Casey both recognize the viability standard, and that seems reasonable to me.

Besides, all his feigned concern over "dead babies", the numbers of medical abortions are dwarfed by the number of "babies" the body aborts all by itself during the first few weeks of a pregnancy, as well as all those killed during IVF, yet they don't even warrant a mention...

Heretic wrote:

Besides, all his feigned concern over "dead babies", the numbers of medical abortions are dwarfed by the number of "babies" the body aborts all by itself during the first few weeks of a pregnancy, as well as all those killed during IVF, yet they don't even warrant a mention...

Yeah,and what about the hundreds of thousand of frozen embryos that are not getting a chance at life Where's the outrage?

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

.... the numbers of medical abortions are dwarfed by the number of "babies" the body aborts all by itself during the first few weeks of a pregnancy ....

[b]And the number of deaths by homicide is dwarfed by the number of deaths by natural causes.
So what's your point?

Why did you edit Heretic's quote and leave this out?

Quote :

as well as all those killed during IVF, yet they don't even warrant a mention...

He's keeping his options open.

happy jack wrote:

I didn't edit his post - I partially quoted him.
There is a difference.

LMAO! Did you ever think of consulting a dictionary before you try to weasel out of something you posted?
Edit
4. To eliminate; delete: edited the best scene out.

Quote :

Happy now, Artie?

Very. Your incredibly lame attempt to avoid accepting responsibility was absolutely hilarious. Well done!

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Your incredibly lame attempt to avoid accepting responsibility was absolutely hilarious. Well done!

It's a damn shame that the slow-witted among us force those of higher intellect to repeat themselves, but such is my burden, and repeat myself I must.

At any rate, the number of deaths by homicide, as well as all those killed during IVF, is dwarfed by the number of deaths by natural causes.
So what's your point?


Happy now, Artie?[/b]

No! My issue was this:

Quote :

I didn't edit his post - I partially quoted him.
There is a difference.

There is no difference. You clearly edited his words. Keep digging,genius.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Your incredibly lame attempt to avoid accepting responsibility was absolutely hilarious. Well done!

It's a damn shame that the slow-witted among us force those of higher intellect to repeat themselves, but such is my burden, and repeat myself I must.

At any rate, the number of deaths by homicide, as well as all those killed during IVF, is dwarfed by the number of deaths by natural causes.
So what's your point?


Happy now, Artie?[/b]

No! My issue was this:

Quote :

I didn't edit his post - I partially quoted him.
There is a difference.

There is no difference. You clearly edited his words. Keep digging,genius.

The comparison I was making focused upon deaths caused with intent, such as homicide and abortion, as opposed to naturally-occurring deaths and, as Heretic put it, “"babies" the body aborts all by itself during the first few weeks of a pregnancy”. Deaths caused through IVF should have been included with the deaths caused by homicide and abortion. There was absolutely nothing nefarious in my omission of that line in my original post, and I rectified the situation in my very next post by including this: as well as all those killed during IVF .
So the questions that need to be asked of you are:
1. W in T F are you whining about?
2. Don’t you ever frickin’ stop?
Jesus H. Christ, you’re like a goddam two year-old who dropped his ice cream cone in the dirt.
Grow up.

happy jack wrote:

1. W in T F are you whining about?
2. Don’t you ever frickin’ stop?
Jesus H. Christ, you’re like a goddam two year-old who dropped his ice cream cone in the dirt.
Grow up.[/b]

First you do something stupid like edit a quote and then you compound it by trying to deny it. When I point it out,you ignore it and quote something entirely different.

No! My issue was this:

Quote :

I didn't edit his post - I partially quoted him.
There is a difference.

There is no difference. You clearly edited his words.
No need to continue this foolishness as people can judge for themselves.
Over and Out

Artie60438 wrote:

Republicans sure seem to enjoy killing,don't they?

Yes, it's almost as if they are saying, "While perishing through lethal injection is indeed a horrible way to go, the truth is that I don't give a rat's ass that they're dead."
Some folks certainly enjoy the death of others, don't they?