22 years in prison for man convicted of spiking girlfriend’s drink with abortion drug



That's not what Alimony is. Alimony is forcibly taking the fruits of a man's labor, and giving it to a woman he is no longer married to. What reason would someone have to own a slave? Are they just pets? Or is it to profit off of their labor? You're confusing the "meaning" of slavery with the "purpose" of slavery.

Body autonomy means control of ones own body. Yes that's right. Is that why abortion proponents refuse to acknowledge a fetus as a life? If we don't consider it alive, we can't violate its autonomy! Brilliant! Too bad, that's just wishful thinking. Does one lose one's autonomy when they are inside another person? lol

If PP (or any organization which seeks to employ doctors) does not pay those doctors a competitive salary, they won't hire any doctors. Aren't you a conservative?

No, I refute Louie's statement because he supposes that "money drives the slaughter of innocents" and as you agree, pretty much all doctors get paid a nice salary - not unique to those who perform abortions, nor is that proof that abortion is some lucrative money-making business. I used the indictment that the "information" was deceptively edited for the sole purpose of misleading the public to refute his claim has been "proven." The fact that said information was also illegally obtained is just icing on the cake.

No, slavery is not ALSO an answer to those conditions. You pointed out one reason, thanks for answering your own question. Another is that slavery is literally owning another person and treating them as property (regardless of work). You asked about confiscating a man's work and giving it to someone else. That is more like taxation, redistribution of wealth, alimony payments, wage garnishing, etc.

Maybe you need to go back up to your very first statement, it is you that equated alimony with slavery. I equated alimony with taxation (at least per the description you gave). I certainly did not equate slavery with taxes...the only one who keeps trying to lump alimony in with slavery. You literally did it again in your post.

"No, I was "alluding" that merely saying something is "a life" is not sufficient to support an anti-abortion argument. A pig is a life. So is a salad."

Correct and as I pointed out, we are talking about HUMAN life. Your attempts to conflate humans with every other animal is disingenuous and fallacious.

"Fetuses are also "different than" humans that have been born. If "different than" is your sole point, then you lose the argument again."

Lulz, you're not very good at this. Fetuses are human. Are you suggesting otherwise?

"If the conversation is about the "sanctity" of human life, then why don't you just admit that your reasons are religious in nature."

You don't get to decide why others believe things. There are just as many secular reasons for not supporting abortion as there are religious ones.

I should have been more careful in my comment. I know you know science and basic biology. Your comments display an ignorance of basic biology though. Living sperm to not reproduce without first joining with an egg.

Evangelical and evangelical (capital "E" vs lower case "e") are not the same. I am a Christian. My allegiance is to Christ and His teachings vice any particular Denomination. My beliefs are evangelical in nature (that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead, that scripture is the inspired word of God, that we are called to present a witness to others). None of the churches I have attended or been a member of are considered Evangelical.

That said, Evangelicals and evangelicals are not monolithic in their beliefs. I am not in favor of banning abortion in all cases by law. I would love to see abortion "eliminate" through cures for gestational/pregnancy related conditions, adoption, no more rape/incest, better choices about sex, etc. I would like to think all of us would like to see this.

No, you are wrong, again. Perhaps you missed the word "intentional" which denotes choice. Regardless, we are talking about the woman's right to choose. The reason men may sometimes receive a conviction like this is because they have denied the woman her rights. That is entirely consistent with law and choice arguments.

That you are trying to make a point "irrespective of choice" demonstrates that you fundamentally misunderstand the law and its considerations. I didn't miss it or ignore it, I pointed it out to you. The fact that a clump of cells is alive has little to do with homicide laws which must also consider intent and removal of individual rights.

No, I was "alluding" that merely saying something is "a life" is not sufficient to support an anti-abortion argument. A pig is a life. So is a salad.

Repeating the fact that humans are different than other animals is not a valid argument for opposing abortion. Pigs are "different than" chickens too. Does that mean it's okay to kill one, but not the other? Fetuses are also "different than" humans that have been born. If "different than" is your sole point, then you lose the argument again.

If the conversation is about the "sanctity" of human life, then why don't you just admit that your reasons are religious in nature. Then we can have a discussion about why that's not a good reason to ban abortion either.

James O Keefe did an interview in plain sight with the lady from the Abortion Industry and she said that could live a life of luxury on the dead baby parts . she told him about how they paid for her Lamborghini .You can lie to yourself but you can't lie to me . I am not into being deceived by false claims . Most of the sites that claim the ABORTION

INDUSTRY IS SAFE are bought and paid for by the Abortion Industry . Look beyond the tip of your nose and you too can find out the truth .

"See what I mean?"

Your opinions on the subject are irrelevant. What I stated is indisputable fact.

You started your argument with, "but I'm guessing you probably don't have any qualms about eating pork chops", attempting to allude that if you were pro-life you would not kill (to eat or whatever) other life that is not human. You were conflating HUMAN life with every other life in the animal kingdom. The conversation is about the sanctity of HUMAN life.

"The question is whether they are different from other animals for any reasons that matter for purposes of this discussion, and particularly whether any of those reasons are applicable to fetuses or embryos."

So you're not asking for objective facts, you want a philosophical reason why humans are different than animals. As I already said, you need to make that determination for yourself, but objectively they are not the same. Period.


Where is lament in my comment. If you are a proponent of logic, as your screen name would imply, you would notice my comments were nothing but honest and logical. I offered no value judgement. I pointed out that humanity and personhood are not the same as "human life." You implied as much.

Further, I assume you know a mosquito is not human and can never be considered "humanity" or a person in any sense of the word. Logically speaking, this is a non-sequitur.

Similarly, you should know that cells in your finger are not the same as a zygote in that the cells you refer to have already differentiated....as they reproduce (to replace dead cells), they do not differentiate into a completely NEW human life. But, as a fan of science, you knew that.

lastly, as you are wont to do, you seem to be arguing for argument sake. I have never called for an outright ban on abortion...yet, you argue as though I have. Straw men arguments do not wear well from people who use "logic" in their screen name.