Until the LAW of the land is overturned, it is the right of someone who does not believe in your opinion, to have an abortion. YOU do not have the right to infringe on the others' rights. Your arguments are opinions, not facts.

So when the law gets overturned, and it will, then did people complicit in abortion kill innocence's then or when the law changes?

the irony of the statements you are making, I cannot ignore. You are here because a woman thought you a blessing rather than a burden

Personal Best Regards:

Not true. You wish to use the Law as reason for murder. Or, if that offends you (and it should) you wish to use the law to justify abortion. You wish to use the law to justify your opinion. No one is disputing the law that you wish to argue. We are just stating correctly that babies are killed by aborting them, regardless of your justification. Saying it is the law and accepted, does not change the fact that someone is being killed by the action. It only makes it justifiable homicide by another name. So, if you feel angered by the debate, you should.

As a matter of fact, you were remiss in explaining that your statement regarding children killed by guns did not include the very few that were killed by gun under the age of one year old (if any). As a matter of fact, you are hard pressed to even uncover a stat that shows any babies killed under one year of age. A lot are killed in auto accidents though.

You wish to debate gun control. Do it, but do not hide your intent by trying to vilify guns under the guise that so many children are killed each year by guns. More children are killed by cars or other accidents, such as prescription pills left out, or poisons, or drowning, etc.

Little did she know....ironic.

So, by ignoring a problem with gun deaths by rationalizing it because other things cause their deaths too, it is ok with you....

Unrelated comparisons (ad homonym) are arguments made by those who cannot substantiate a position on the theme at hand.

It is a tactic used by trolls who hide behind that facade to mask their ineptitude

No, the problem is with people like you, not the responsible majority.

Go ahead....show me the facts that YOU are in the "responsible" majority.

>crickets sounding<

just as i thought....a braggart without facts, oh, wait, that is the definition of a Trumpeter!

Sorry, did you ask a stupid question again, while I was gone? You want me to prove to you that I am in the responsible majority? First off, proving to you would be a useless waste of time. You wouldn't realize it if it punched you in the kisser.

Ok, I have owned guns since I was a teen and have not shot anyone that did not need shooting. That's responsible. No, I did not kill any children that I know of. That makes me responsible.

But seriously, I don't give a rat's @ss what you think, and am just passing my time with you and giving it about as much thought as passing wind.

You are a gun sissy that says she hates guns until one is used to save your useless life, or put food on your table. Oops, you are probably a vegan too.

Yeah, violence against another is the ONLY way you can think you prove yourself right. Bullies think that way, psychotics think that way.....which one are you? probably both.

I did not say that, you, obviously are so defensive that you go off the deep end with your paranoia.

Well then, why did you respond?

Again, bullying does nothing to substantiate your opinion, other than makes you sound as dumb as you are....

I guess you forgot the question you asked me. I'll let your lack of comprehension slide for now. If I would have realized that you were related to Tal, I would have been kinder in my response. Although, I thought I was using kid gloves anyway, but.........some folks are a bit sensitive.

I expect that you consider yourself to be prolife?

Is the opposite considered pro-death?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

So am I.

No its just a question....