It’s the choice that plagues modern man: BuzzFeed or ignorance?

Yes, really. A post entitled “8 Outrageous Things Planned Parenthood Was Caught Doing” is, remarkably, still live on BuzzFeed despite backlash from the pro-abortion crowd.

Insane, right? There’s an actual, honest-to-goodness, no apologies pro-life post on BuzzFeed. How can this sort of thing happen in America in 2013?

The New York Observer’s Kara Bloomgarden-Smoke decided to check with BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith, who assured her that BuzzFeed is “in the process of figuring out where and whether we should draw lines about what’s appropriate on what we conceived as an open platform.” The post slamming Planned Parenthood appears in BuzzFeed’s reader-submitted “Community” section and was the work of community contributor Personhood USA — not BuzzFeed staff, who instead publish strictly objective, fact-checked posts like, “The Internet Celebrates Texas State Senator Wendy Davis’ Filibuster,” “Parody of ‘Blurred Lines’ Stands Up for Women’s Rights in Texas” and “6 Times Wendy Davis Was a ‘Cool Mom’ In Her Vogue Profile.”

Smith noted further, “there isn’t a single link on BuzzFeed to this story.” But still, it exists. It’s on the web right now. What if someone, like, stumbles upon it while checking out the latest cat GIFs and, you know, reads it?

  • FreedomFighter

    Libs sure are a hateful, sensitive bunch.

    • John Alvarado

      They keep the hate inside of them. It slowly eats away at them.

      • CatHerder

        Pity it doesn’t work faster.

    • trixiewoobeans

      Who knew these feeling, sensitive souls would consider a person’s right to live, and an organization’s (PP) crimes of racism, misogyny, and murder, strictly taboo?

      • Graham Shaw

        PP give mammograms to poor women that washes away any other sin that they commit so sayth Barack Obama (may he live forever)

    • Kristin

      I wish that old stereotype would go away already. Over 21 million American Democrats are Pro-Life. According to this Pew research poll (I’ll put it at the end of this), more Democrats and Liberals find abortion morally wrong than morally acceptable, it’s just that the ones who think it isn’t a moral issue in addition to the ones who think it’s morally acceptable is greater than those who think it is morally wrong, yet the difference still isn’t as big as the media would like you to believe. Don’t say Libs, say pro-choicers. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/15/abortion-viewed-in-moral-terms/

  • Matthew Koch

    Are liberals really that stupid?

    • HWarrior13

      Is that a serious question ?

    • Joe W.

      Why yes…yes they are…..

    • IrishEddieOHara

      Indeedy they are!!

    • AlmaAlma

      What, you mean killing causes death? No waaaay Buzzfeed, no way.

  • Matthew Koch

    Accuse someone of lying without giving an example. Hmmm.

    Is that an Alinsky tactic?

  • Netmilsmom

    Catholic Memes put a link to this on FB. I had to click it three times before I would believe it was Buzzfeed. We ARE winning the young people. Once they get out of the indoctrination centers (college) and make it to the real world, they are seeing the light.

    • Maxwell

      The majority of people I know around my age (21) tend to be pro-life. I have even met several Atheist who are pro-life even.

      • Mr_Wrestling_XIII

        People don’t give the current generation credit. Yeah, they’re alright with same-sex marriage, but simultaneously they are becoming more pro-life.

        • Worship Dancer

          well if you think about it if the same-sex people get their way there won’t be a need for abortions in the future. Adam and Steve can’t procreate. nor can Eve and Yvonne. sorry kids that’s biology, nature. just gotta have boy & girl together to make babies.

  • NeoKong

    Apparently showing Planned Parenthood in their own actions and in their own words is some sort of propaganda.

    • Michael

      The truth is not something that interests the pro-abortion crowd.

      When they see it, they are like cornered animals. They know no other way to react but to lash out with anger and violence.

  • Republicanvet

    Hey raving leftists, why not burn Buzzardfeed? You can move on to books you don’t like later.

  • BornLibre

    Hell they didn’t even cover the REALLY bad stuff that goes back to their founding.

  • Republicanvet

    “FFS, @Buzzfeed, I didn’t realize your “community” content has absolutely no standards. This is shameful http://bit.ly/16Eg0ut on @Wonkette”

    …and leftists usually demand there be no standards, particularly when it comes to killing the unborn.

  • HWarrior13

    I’m 1st trimester choice choice…(yeah, I know I’m a “meanie”), but I truly don’t understand all the HATE the pro abortion people have. WHY are they SO angry about getting abortions, in particular, abortions over 5 months ? It’s like they want abortion with vengeance or something.
    And yet, these people, who have so much hate inside them, are so popular, even AFTER people know that they “hard core” (late term) pro abortion…What gives ?

    • waltermitty2012

      You’re just one trimester away from being on the right side of the pro-life debate. C’mon, join us.

      • ElbethL

        We even have cupcakes! Not-a-joke-or-exaggeration, there is a Pro-Life Cupcake Day. S/He could join us for the cupcakes, right? :)

        • HWarrior13

          Well…I do like cupcakes :- )

      • HWarrior13

        I’ll give it some thought ;-)…That stated, can anyone explain to me why the hard core choice people are SO p*iss ed off?

        • Republicanvet

          They agree with Preezy Obysmal and don’t want to be punished.

        • ElbethL

          I was going to say “because the claim they make on bodily autonomy, if the unborn is not a person, is a very important one.” But the pro-life claim is equally grave and–in general–pro-lifers are not so angry (though I will cop to being fairly furious, myself). So that doesn’t quite cover it.

          Part of it may be strategy. Liberals love to say that getting mad about things produces action. Which it can. But I think most of it is the philosophical underpinning on which the movement is based. Abortion apologetics is pro-SELF. Therefore, any time the self isn’t gratified, that signals–in this paradigm–a something seriously wrong. When the cause of this problem is an external force (i

          • ElbethL

            Sorry. iOS and Disqus are not playing nicely together and so I can’t edit that post.

            Anyway, when the force can’t be controlled, as in the case of another person behaving in an undesired way, if the abortion apologist can’t make them stop, anger and frustration are the next steps. Self is the central focus, so bring displeased/disappointed becomes the worst of all possible worlds.

        • waltermitty2012

          I don’t know. Maybe they’re worried about a drop in business and all that lost revenue.

        • waltermitty2012

          If you join right now, you would be a shoo-in for New Member of the Month for September. It comes with it’s own parking spot.

          • HWarrior13

            Parking spots *AND* cupcakes ?
            I really don’t think your side is getting the message out about all the upsides…you need to look into getting a better PR person.

          • waltermitty2012

            It’s not about upsides, it’s what you believe. If you believe that life begins at conception, then you want to protect that life in every stage of their development.

            It’s good that you’re against abortion after the first trimester, but take a good look during the first trimester. You can usually detect a baby’s heart beating at 6 weeks. Hands and legs are discernible at about 8 weeks.

            We don’t need a better PR person, we just need more people to respect life in every stage of their development and that change comes from within.

          • HWarrior13

            Parking spots *AND* cupcakes ?
            I really don’t think your side is getting the message out about all the upsides…you need to look into getting a better PR person.

        • alanstorm

          What choice do they have?

          1) They are absolutely convinced that they are right. No doubts whatsoever. Just read the tweets above.

          2) Anything that threatens the “right” to abortion, up to and for all I know past delivery, disturbs their echo-chamber. Again, the tweets above demonstrate this.

          3) Since they have rejected reason and rationality, their only possible response is emotional; violent thought and hatred.

          How else do you explain the illogical outpouring of BS re: Texas’s 20-week limit? If it takes someone more than half their pregnancy to make that decision, they are not equipped to make it.

        • Notbuyingit3337

          They perceive the pro-life issue as a threat to women’s “equality” and women’s “rights” to sex. They believe that sex frees women, when in reality, pre-marital sex enslaves them. I grew up pro-choice until I starting researching the other side.

        • $24549613

          They believe that all pro lifers are 1) Christian and 2) slut-shammers

          I posit that pro aborts are so angry because they are dull in bed and don’t have enough orgasms

        • http://www.FunDMental.com TheRealJackpineSavage

          Simply put, Their minds are already made up.
          Facts to the contrary simply baffle and anger them.

          Try convincing a 4 year old that his imaginary friend isn’t real, and you will understand where libs are coming from.

    • Joe W.

      A “meanie”?? Nah. You are a pro murder ghoul. Simple as that.

      • HWarrior13

        Ok…alrighty, then.

        • Mr_Wrestling_XIII

          Ignore Joe W. He’s one of those holier-than-thou “conservatives”. A couple weeks ago here on Twitchy, he called me a “liberal” for wishing Usher’s son well. Gotta love the internet! xD

          • HWarrior13

            He’s one of the extremes akin to those on the left noted in the above Twitter comments. As you can see, I tend to pat them on the head and move on.

            I don’t understand why anyone would be upset for wishing someone’s young child gets better after they’ve been in a serious accident?
            That’s a tad confusing.
            Perhaps “Quack” is not a religious person (that’s ok), and/or not raised with ethics and morals (that’s not ok).

            Slamming/disrespecting/lack of compassion of young children, no matter what side of the political aisle their parents are on, is off limits for me.

    • BAW

      I don’t know, I don’t understand much of what they support but…..

      Some of them are in it for the money (check out who owns abortion clinics) some of them are just using it as a political weapon against the right claiming to be all about “women’s rights,” some really do want “undesirables” aborted, some men support it to protect themselves from responsibility, there are a lot of reasons, none of which I can find that are good but I think they’re so angry and hateful because in a real debate, they lose. Even the majority of “pro-choice” people (if you can get them to talk about it) disagree with them on late term abortion, abortion as just another method of birth control, protecting the women who get abortions and laws like the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. No surprise that ticks them off. They do seem to get angrier and more hateful the more the monopoly they once had with the press is chipped away.

      At least that’s some of what I’ve figured out.

      • HWarrior13

        Hmmm….some good stuff here.
        What resonated with me the most. in regards to what you wrote, is the sentence.
        ” They do seem to get angrier and more hateful the more the monopoly they once had with the press is chipped away.”
        Yes, I think people do tend to get more angry when they are losing something, don’t they?

        I never actually looked at it from that prospective. It makes sense.
        Thank you.

        • BAW

          Well, thank you. I appreciate that you appreciate my rambling.

          • HWarrior13

            You’re welcome and I didn’t find your comment rambling at all.

          • BAW

            You really are a sweetie. Now a “meanie” at all.

          • HWarrior13

            Well, thank you. And I don’t think “Quack” is representative of Conservatives.

            Most of them have been very polite and kind and some of them have even offered me a nice parking space of my own…and CUPCAKES !

          • BAW

            I was confused by the Quack reference, assumed it was something I was unfamiliar with that the left calls “us.” Thought it was, relatively speaking, nicer than most. Doing a little extra reading I now understand and also got to fully enjoy the ‘nice parking space and cupcakes’ reference.

            But in defense of people on the right who are not as “very polite and kind” as most, please understand there is a lot to be angry about. Besides the fact that we are all vilified every day as racist, sexist, homophobic, stupid, intolerant, rednecks, hate filled, evil, RWNJs. (I mean it’s so common there’s a recognizable abbreviation.) Christians and their faith are attacked with impunity (and generally they just pray for their attackers). For most of us, everything we believe in is under attack, being destroyed with genuine hatred. Conservatives are “conservative” and we don’t generally get really ugly (although the humor of a “happy warrior” can push the limits sometimes) BUT I understand when some, sometimes have simply had enough!!! I don’t know if their anger is more personal or they’re just having a bad day. But it’s like letting boys be boys. Women cry, sometimes men swear and hit things. Letting it out is necessary. But on the right, if you pay attention, the truly hateful stuff, really crossing the line is never cheered. It is regularly called out, shunned or stopped. No offense intended, but In my opinion, some of the worse that comes from the left is representative of the left, it even comes from Democrat leadership. So we can’t really just “pat them on the head and move on.” We have to fight it. (I do too ramble.)

            I sincerely believe there are few on the right who wouldn’t fell bad about being mean to someone as nice as you are.

      • Notbuyingit3337

        Don’t forget population control and the eradication of religion. (Sexually active teens are less likely to follow their parents values/traditions/ and religious beliefs.) Planned Parenthood had “stabilizing the US population” as one of their stated goals on their 2009 tax returns.

        • BAW

          I was around for the whole “Population Bomb” frenzy but the current population control thinking is something I haven’t even tried to understand. I just lump them in with all the crazy environmentalists, climate change type zealots.

          For me you bring up an excellent point about the attack on religion. The left does attack religion at every opportunity, with every issue, from every direction, all the time. Activist atheists are some of the most offensive people I ever come across. And it’s so easy for them because more often than not a Christian will just respond with, “I’ll pray for you.”

          But you are right. I’ve seen pro-lifers repeatedly attacked as religious nuts and it’s refuted over and over again. “You don’t have to be religious to believe in the right to life.” But the attack is always one of their favorites.

          • CLV

            Um… crazy environmentalists? Climate change is very real, scientifically proven, just as the facts of foetal development which make us oppose abortion are.

          • BAW

            Yes, crazy environmentalists. They falsely claimed that DDT would kill all the song birds so they got it banned and millions of people died of malaria. And they didn’t care.

            But the crazy is clearer when they live in trees or get excited about pooping in the woods or cry about the trees.

            Of course the climate changes. The debate is whether or not we have caused it and whether or not or how much we could if we tried.

            Science is great when it actually proves or disproves something but the vast majority of “science” in my lifetime has been predictions, opinions, theories that have changed from day to day.

            I didn’t need science to “prove” my children were people and alive from the day they were conceived. And it wasn’t science that made us mourn the loss of children before they were born.

          • Notbuyingit3337

            Possibly scientifically proven by people that profit off of it? I used to be pro-choice until I started looking into the other side. I have not seen pro-lifers “lie”, but I’ve seen plenty of whoppers from the pro-choice camp. Planned Parenthood doesn’t profit off of abstinence. Think.

      • AlmaAlma

        Doesn’t Eric Holder’s wife own an abortion clinic?

    • Maxwell

      “It’s like they want abortion with vengeance or something.”

      If you really hate your baby daddy (so sad that term is regularly used nowadays.) what better way to get back at him then to take away the one thing he truly wants… a child.

      • HWarrior13

        Interesting take…but I’m not sure liberal “men” really like kids all that much.
        Perhaps you’ve spent too much time around decent, responsible men, so now you’re viewing this issue from that perspective ?

        • Maxwell

          I think once they get older, they would want to have kids. That’s just me though.

          When you think about it, a fetus is a powerful negotiating tool, especially in a divorce settlement case (forget what the legal term is for when trying to figure out how to divide up assets.) I don’t think it’s something feminist want to give up considering feminism is more about power these days than actual equality. Obviously, this isn’t a common occurrence, but it happens.

          So I think the whole advocate for late term abortion stems back to power. Nothing more powerful than being able to determine the life of another, regardless of trimester. When abortion is limited to only the first trimester, you lose a bit of that power (well technically 2/3s of it.)

          Sorry for the long text. Narcolepsy is kicking in, so I’m bored, and re watching old anime is only entertaining for so long :p

  • http://mpj.co WhoDat

    And our president loves this organization. Frightening.

    • The Penguin #PublishThatSh*t

      Are you bipolar? You flip flop more than a just unhooked fish on a boat deck.

  • GrindingMills

    Were cats involved?

  • therealguyfaux

    Typical Buzzfeed reader: “(*fingers-in-ears*) Lahdeedah, lahdeedah…”?

    Thought experiment:

    Assume you’re pro-choice– are there perhaps SOME people you might not want on your side, if they engage in practices that you might find horrendous? Wouldn’t you want the most criminal of acts performed by people on your side punished, so you won’t be tainted by association with them? Wouldn’t you want an investigation?

    Assume you’re pro-life– do the most radical people on the other side ever cut you a break when you tell them you do not support the murder of Dr Tiller, or that idiot who bombed the Olympics and abortion clinics in Georgia? Or are you tainted by association? Wouldn’t you want an investigation?

  • Maxx

    I always laugh when I read a liberal claiming conservatives who prefer that a fetus be allowed to live are spreading “hateful” propaganda.

    Apparently, the opposite of hate is love and what better way for liberals to spread “love” than to destroy another human being?

    You’ll twist yourself into knots trying to understand liberal logic on abortion because frankly, it doesn’t exist. There is nothing logical about marching for the right to continue murdering the unborn.

    No wonder aliens never land here. They observe us from afar and must think to themselves, “these people murder their future children? No intelligent life down there….moving on.”

    • ObamaFail

      What is it about liberals that makes them believe that a person who believes a baby has a right to live is hateful, but a person who believes that all unborn children should be ripped apart is a loving human being?

      • Clete Torres

        These same people that hold candlelight vigils for death-row inmates and march to end capital punishment.

        So consider the source.

    • capisce

      “Advocating the killing of viable babies proves how much we cherish and respect all life”

      • OldLady Norma

        Am not sure how to take this quote. Are you being snarky or serious?

        • capisce

          definite snark…the scary/sad thing is that they believe the illogic.

          • OldLady Norma

            Just making sure. I was about 99% sure it was snark…but, as you said they believe this crap.

  • ObamaFail

    They want to call us Anti-choice instead of pro-life. But then they get offended by pro-abortion.

    Call me anti-choice all you want you baby killers. At least I don’t value the life of serial killers on death row over an unborn child.

  • Adela Wagner

    “you guys really shouldn’t be in the abortion debate” We like our debates ONE sided, FACTS have NO place in a debate and besides facts are RACIST!

    oops, almost forgot the /sarc tag.

  • ElbethL

    I love how panicky the pro-aborts get whenever they are confronted by the shattering reality that pro-life people exist.

  • aztectrumpet

    Oh the irony

  • aztectrumpet

    If the are gonna call our position anti-choice, maybe I should always refer to them as anti-life instead of pro-choice.

  • http://newsbusters.org/ KenShepherd

    Ah, the tolerance of the Left.

  • chetnapier

    hey we are all for free speech but shutup

  • George Washington Mclintock

    Boy, these left-wing reporters love to congratulate themselves for their bravery when they spread race hoaxes and are talking about the dangers of a teenage mitt ROmney, but they sure fold quick when they are told to by prominent progs. Is being a two-faced coward the industry hiring standard? So, the co-creator of the Daily Show is the Editor-in-Chief of Buzzfeed? We are all familiar with Ben Smith, so the upcoming 456 Pro-Barbie Butcher Barbie articles to appease the baby-killing witches who had their thirst for blood called out won’t be a surprise. But the answer is right in his own words: “…open-source platform.” That means everyone gets a voice. If some people don’t like it, you should tell ’em to read something else and change your whole site. But it’s Buzzfeed, whose work is marked by cowardice, lack-of-principle, and the easy road.

  • Jimni27

    I love it. Not one of those kids have an actual argument against it. Just shouting LIES! How dare buzzfeed not tow the liberal line.

    • alanstorm

      SOP for liberal arguments. Every one.

      • Jimni27

        SOP?

        • Marjorie

          Standard Operating Procedure.

          • Jimni27

            Oh, thanks :)

  • Stephen L. Hall

    The sheer ability of leftist to dismiss videos of people in their own words as propaganda and lies is truly amazing. Cognitive dissonance has been turned into an Olympic event by these people.

    • AlmaAlma

      When you think about it, it is the same mindset that allowed people to believe that if you tattoo a number on a person’s arm, they are not human and you can destroy a whole race.

  • TocksNedlog

    Looks to me like only one side is spreading “propaganda” and “lies,” here.

  • TocksNedlog

    And, of course, Lizz “hoax? What hoax? I don’t know nothin’ ’bout no hoax at my alma mater” Winstead is one of those calling for the stifling of dissent.

    • BAW

      No dissent is allowed on the left. I was just recently reminded of what the left did to the Whole Foods guy who wrote an oped suggesting an alternative to Obamacare. Or Bill Cosby’s Pound Cake speech? I’m sure there are many examples of them stifling their own.

    • Mike

      That’s Lena Dunham. Not Lizz Winstead.

      • TocksNedlog

        Whoops! Got my lefty psycho-b*tches confuzzled.

  • John Alvarado

    Thank God that those children aborted will join him and for their parents… Sadly, I can’t say the same. Hopefully, they wise up and get saved. Everyone must realize that these people don’t win even when they get an abortion.

  • LochGates44

    Notice they can’t debunk a single thing posted on the Buzzfeed link? It’s all about hiding the truth about the pro-infanticide gestapo of the far left.

  • jerry148

    You know, I’ve always supported the pro-life movement (due to my Catholic upbringing). Lately, though, I’ve been thinking that the opposition deserves my support. I say let them have their abortion-on-demand. I mean, do we really need these people to reproduce?

  • Maxwell

    I was reading the article about abortion, but then I saw the article, “17 reasons why being a mermaid would be awesome” on their website. I screamed with gee and went to read that… because mermaids are awesome.

    Ok, on a serious note. Why do liberals hate having their viewpoints challenged so much? Most conservatives I know don’t mind being challenged, but liberals act like it’s the end of the world when their challenged.

    • TexSizzle

      They hate having their viewpoints challenged because they have no defense for what they believe / feel, and/or they believe with religious fervor and no knowledge to back it up. In the latter case, you are criticizing their god, and as is the case with any insecure religious zealot, they hate you for it.

  • lisanemo

    Well the article is getting lots of love on buzzfeed. That is encouraging.

  • RememberSekhmet

    First of all, it’s called freedom of speech. Secondly, pro-lifers finally got smart. People can in their minds deny the import of a pregnancy and its termination, and waving pictures of mangled fetuses was just grossing people out. But the Gosnell trial brought forward aspects that are less able to be dismissed: The cat pee on the walls, the qualifications (or lack thereof) of the doctors, and the fact that any questioning of an abortion clinic’s safety is met with screaming and waving coat hangers.

  • Karl H

    There are two things about this subject that always gets me upset. One Being a father of daughters (that I have delivered at home) I can not fathom the ability to murder the unborn. And that is really disturbing, so much so that I get a bit of a sick feeling.

    The other part is that this is the one subject that shows the oppositions willingness to lie regardless of the evidence piled in their face. And that demonstrates one irrefutable fact. They are not reasonable or rational people. There is a huge problem with that. Reasonable and rational people can be negotiated with they can be interacted with. You can have differences and it is ok.

    Irrational people can not be reasoned with and you can not trust them. They are at the very best a serious threat in that you can not tell when they will fake racist crap at a university or start shooting up the offices of the discovery channel or text pictures of their junk to your kids. The irrational mind only understands brute force. The irrational mind is only safe when you have your boot on their neck.

    I do not want to think that there is a significant part of my nation that is on the same level as a baboon in terms of their civilized nature.

    • BAW

      Although it’s far from definitive, polls suggest that only a “relatively” small, less than 20% of Americans support the far left radical ideology. I’m also reasonably certain that on most issues activists come from that small minority. But they are the most vocal, most visible (including members of the press), the loudest, and most passionate (usually rudest) and therefore seem to speak for a far greater number of people than they actually do. Now I agree with you, they are scary crazy.

      For example, I believe that the majority of Americans who call themselves “pro-choice” actually believed or still believe in Clinton’s (no doubt poll tested) fairy tale of “safe, legal, and rare.” I seldom find them in the debate but I think that is because most of them really don’t want to talk about abortion, they don’t want to think about abortion, they just want to be “fair” (it’s a woman’s choice) and then be left out of it. I don’t think they’re crazy or bad people, I just think they don’t really understand. They don’t know the truth about abortion and/or really don’t want to. Since they are majority support for the “pro-abort” side it’s why they find so hard to keep Gosnell, this PP article, and other facts out of the news and why they get so mad when they fail. Over time they have lost some of their supporters, to the truth, and they’ll loss more as people learn.

      Too late to make this short but I still believe the majority of Americans are good, decent people. The crazies are in our face all the time but I still believe they are the fringe. They have far too much power and influence but I still don’t think we’re outnumbered yet. I agree they can not be reasoned with and must be defeated. On the other hand, the Tea Party movement, some defeats for the gun control forces, the serious support for Zimmerman’s right to self defense, the incredible courage of Antoinette Tuff (although the press avoided her Christian faith as her explanation), Texans rejecting Wendy Davis…… there are signs of the forces for good, the press just suppresses the truth. It’s all one of the reasons I’ve decided illegal voting is far more widespread and significant than I’ve ever thought. But people good are fighting that too. I can get angry, frustrated, or depressed about what I see easily enough but Twitchy is always here to cheer me up.

  • Thomas, Snarkmaster General

    Here’s the thing. The Left has called anyone who opposes abortion “anti-choice.” Personally, I think we should turn the tables on them and call people who support the “right” to choose “pro death.”

    • Michael

      Pro-MURDER.

      Three people go into the treatment room at PP. The doc, the pregnant mom and the baby. Only two come out ALIVE. And the one who died committed NO CRIME, but was sentenced to DEATH.

      That is MURDER.

    • AlmaAlma

      anti-choice to murder

  • Stu Gotts

    “To anger a Conservative, tell a lie. To anger a progressive, tell the truth”

    These progs can’t handle the truth.

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      The truth is that abortion is controlled by scientific laws. Those laws show that the pro life side does not in fact save life and in fact causes death.

      • Ronald Green

        Perhaps, but murdering the unborn is most certainly death.

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          Pro lifers murder the born to save the unborn.

      • MarcusFenix

        I dismantled your fake “scientific laws” above. It’s crap. Try again.

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          You simply constructed a straw man and dismantled it. You didn’t touch me.

  • breezermom

    Amazing how even when faced with live video documentation of the realities of the abortion providers lawless and dangerous actions, abortion supporters dismiss the information. What will it take to open the eyes and minds of abortion supporters?? Any one have a clue??

  • breezermom

    Amazing how even when faced with live video documentation of the realities of the abortion providers lawless and dangerous actions, abortion supporters dismiss the information. What will it take to open the eyes and minds of abortion supporters?? Any one have a clue??

  • Maria L B

    They apparently didn’t read the article, because it wasn’t “anti-abortion propaganda.” The self-righteous open-minded, relativistic, tolerant complainers need to READ the opposing view. I read their opinions all the time. They are not my enemy, and we have to understand where each other are coming from.

    Planned Parenthood is messed up. Watch Maafa 21.

  • Isa241

    It’s funny how so many people are calling the article lies and propaganda, but no one is attempting to make any kind of rational argument as to WHY they believe it’s untrue.

  • Mr_Wrestling_XIII

    But they’re alright with left-wing propaganda on Buzz… The hypocrisy of these people. It’s better if Buzzfeed stay away from politics. Not really a proper forum of it. except for morons.

    • Michael

      Leftists are all for “free speech” -as long as they agree with what is being said.

  • KhadijahMuhammad

    Most of the comments on BuzzFeed to the article are positive. There’s the usual pro-abortion haters, but they are outnumbered by the free speechers and the pro-lifers.

    Must come as a shock to the coastal elites who never read polls.

  • Michael

    So, those who stand up for the sanctity of life, and wish to ensure that every person has “…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” are “hateful” and “zealots”.

    So that means that those who believe that 53,000,000 dead children (since Roe v. Wade) are the epitomy of loving, level-headed people.

    Yeah, right.

    It doesn’t matter where you are on this debate -left, right, center- at the end of the day, we cannot say that 53 million dead babies is the BEST we can do as human beings.

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      The facts don’t support your claims. The facts show that before Roe when abortion was illegal the number of births dropped 6 million and after Roe the number of births increased by 25 million. So your 53 million dead children number is a lie.

      • Ronald Green

        The fact is that your side has murdered 53,000,000 children. Own it, live with it. You’re no better that the Nazis.

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          I challenge you to prove that 53 million children have been murdered. If you will be so kind as to look at the number of births you will find that 25 million babies have been born. Where are your facts? http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

        • MarcusFenix

          He can’t. He’s busy making up new scientific law….at home.

          His stats are that 25 million babies have been born. There have been 53 million abortions in the US since Row v Wade.

          To him, those 25 million who were born are somehow saved and preserved by….abortion. Nevermind the 53 million that were never allowed to get that far. He also doesn’t account for the fact that regardless of abortions, those 25 million would have been born anyway…but who needs common sense with this guy?

          Believe me…I’ve spent hours with this quack. If you scroll up, you can see exactly how out of his mind he is….it’s pretty bad.

          And liberals, as you well know, won’t own anything. This guy likely has a Ph.D in how to spin things totally around to where he sounds smart, and still is lying and incorrect. It’s almost pathetic. His statement is “Pro lifers murder babies”.

          Seriously. He’s said it. Over and over and over. His feed is full of saying that by preserving one unborn childs’ life….you’re killing people.

          It’s enough to make your head spin, man.

          • Ronald Green

            I have noticed. It’s why I refer to him as a Nazis. He demanded I prove my numbers and I told him to shut up. I can’t stand even trying to discuss anything with such a twisted mind. I had another try to tell me that the decline of morality in the country is caused by Republicans and the ‘income disparity’ in the country. I doubt the moron even knows what ‘income disparity’ even means but he had to throw out his lib talking points. Liberalism is indeed some insidious disease of the mind.

          • MarcusFenix

            The problem is…you can use proof, stats, facts, or anything else you like. He just doesn’t accept them. I almost feel I would have been better off punching myself in the face than spending pages of text on trying to cut through the crap.

            If you go to the “scientific” page he has, one of the “laws” of science (that he directly claims he invented and made up) is something called the “Law of Conception”.

            That law states the following: ” Most conceptions end in abortion.”

            Apparently, he came up with this mind-blowing revelation as a direct result of his imagination. No stats. No actual figures. Even basic common sense would come to the conclusion that this seems *really* wrong….but we probably missed his rivoting work while being blinded by his abject buffoonery.

            I’m just going to enjoy a lovely brew and forget I ever sullied myself on someone that retarded.

            And a good evening to you, sir. :) Cheers!

  • Michael

    At the Texas State Capitol, the Capitol police force confiscated bags of feces and jars of urine from the pro-abortion protesters.

    The group of pro-life demonstrators from Students For Life were peacefully singing and behaving properly. They were escorted out by the Capitol police “for their own safety”.

    That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      The police have no proof they found a thing. They could be lying, right? Or is that impossible?

  • pippin

    I think every pub should show both sides. This is America and so far we still have free speech. Or is that only for one side? I think it gives a pub respect and balance to be able to publish the content of differing opinions.

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      It is important that both sides be shown.

  • BAW

    Not familiar with BuzzFeed but if I understand all this, it is a liberal source. And if that’s right, I’m impressed. From the comments on the article it appears the truth is getting out. Even with the media black out and bias, there’s a lot more truth in the comments than I would have expected.

  • Susan Howard

    These responses seem like parodies in themselves! Calling provable facts “lies” and being morally outraged that someone wants to protect BABIES? I mean, come on. A REAL pro-choicer would simply say that pro-lifers are mistaken about when life begins. They would not get offended that someone who does believe in preborn life would then want to protect it. Proving that these people are not pro-choice, they are ANTI-LIFE and hateful, creepy people. UNREAL!

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      Susan, pro lifers murder innocent abortion doctors, bomb clinics, lie to women, post pornography and kill born life to save fetuses. I am a real pro choicer. I am offended that you would think you get a pass on those actions.

  • IrishEddieOHara

    What do you expect from Liberals? I go over to Common Dreams to engage in debate with them. I am always polite, make my points, and give links. They, on the other hand, are rude, drop the F Bomb on me, and eventually to to the officers of Common Dreams and have me banned.

    Of course, I just go to the library and sign in as a guest and keep right on annoying them with the truth.

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      The fact is that pro lifers have a choice, they may save one of the 1.8 born babies that are dying each second or they may let them die and save a fetus instead. If pro lifers choose to spend one second to save the fetus, then 1.8 born babies will die. Pro lifers don’t save life, they kill born babies to save fetuses.

      • MarcusFenix

        That has to be the most convoluted, nonsensical, and factually incorrect things I’ve seen here since I got back from vacation.

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          It is factual and correct to say that you have a choice, you may save born babies or you may let them die and save a fetus instead. You cannot save both, because more are dying than you can save. If you spend one second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born babies will die. If you think otherwise, explain how you will save a fetus without letting a born baby die.

          • MarcusFenix

            By your “logic” then…the human population on this planet is in decline, because if there is more death than birth….well, we’d have less people.

            Of course, the fact that populations are going up means nothing I suppose. See your other posting and my response.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            No, by my factual statement, 7 billion people are born and they are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. That amounts to 57 million deaths a year. So the human population is growing despite the fact that many are murdered by pro life ideas.

          • MarcusFenix

            So, you’re saying because someone chose life, they’re really choosing death….instead of choosing to destroy them up front?

            Amazing how ignorant that statement is, on it’s face.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            No, what I say is very clear. You have a choice, you may choose to save born babies or you may choose to save a fetus. Either way you are saving one life and causing the death of another. The statement is not ignorant. It is a scientific fact. There are 1.8 born humans dying each second. You can save one or let it die and save a fetus instead. If you choose to save the fetus, then born babies die. If you choose to save the baby then a fetus dies. You can’t save both because there are more born people dying than can be saved.

          • MarcusFenix

            I’ve already debunked this entire line of thought you have above…so you’re still using the same broken lines to explain something that has nothing to do with another.

            It’s stupid, to be honest.

  • feduppianoman

    anti abortion zealots are spreading hateful propaganda… as opposed to murdering abortionists spreading… what… love? This world gets sicker, and more twisted by the day.

  • ChristinaDunigan

    Kudos to BuzzFeed for standing up to PP’s useful idiots!

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      Christina, you have a choice, you may save innocent born babies or you may let then die and save a fetus instead, which do you save?

      • MarcusFenix

        As has been pointed out, there’s no reason whereby both cannot be saved. Whatever “saved” means to you. Keep trying.

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          You have made the statement that you can save both. I have told you that you cannot and asked you to explain how you will save the 7 billion born people that are dying at the rate of 1.8 each second. You have not answered. So don’t lead others to murder innocent babies, admit you are lying. Or tell us how you will save every dying person.
          And while you are at it, explain why you have not saved them all so far. Why are you letting born people die if you have the knowledge to save them?

          • MarcusFenix

            You’re right when you say you’ve told me those things. You just have yet to produce a single line of text, on this entire page, as to what your position is, without saying the same line over and over.

            I’ll go very slow. I’ll use small sentences.

            Pro life person helps save baby. Baby lives. Baby saved.
            Pro life person saves fetus. Fetus lives. Fetus saved.

            How is that just not clear?

            Explain. What do 7 billion other people have to do with one fetus? What do 7 billion other people have to do with one baby? You -never- have explained that, over the course of how many days of being asked?

            What is “saving” people? What is “saving” babies. What is “saving” fetus’? In what context do you mean that term? Save them from what? From who or whom? What does this “saving” entail.

            The rate of living people dying is eclipsed by the rate of birth. Your entire premise is faulty, if you believe our rate of dying as a species is faster than it’s born. We covered that, three times. Just because you don’t like it, or close your eyes and hope that fact changes when you open them makes you no more correct. If that is not what you mean, then spell out (for the 5th time i’ve asked) what do you, in fact mean. Use facts. Use actual science. Use words and their correct grouping.

            Pro lifers are not murdering babies. A statement which says otherwise is incompatible by it’s nature. Why would someone who is pro life then kill a baby? Why would someone who is pro life kill a fetus, when that’s the opposite of what that term entails? How would a pro-lifer go about killing a baby? How would a pro lifer go about killing a fetus.

            Can you describe how aborting a fetus “saves” it. Can you detail why you believe that abortions have -increased- population rates, without quoting an out of context statistic from 1973?

            How are we letting born people die? Are we now talking about born people, as adults? You’re talking about abortion -saving- children. You’re talking about babies. You’re talking about the life of a fetus. Can you stay on topic? As you like to say “Don’t confuse the reader”.

            If you can just be intellectually honest about this one post….just this -one-….that’d be great.

            All of those questions above have been posed, repeatedly. You haven’t answered a single one.

            There. Short and simple. Can you work with this, or are you just going to copy/paste the same answers from before?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “You’re right when you
            say you’ve told me those things. You just have to produce a single line of
            text, on this entire page, as to what your position is, without saying the same
            line over and over.”

            If you ask the same question you will get the same answer.

            “I’ll go very slow.
            I’ll use small sentences.”

            “Pro life person helps
            save baby. Baby lives. Baby saved.”

            Yes, but 1.8 born babies, children and adults continue to die each second.
            Saving one does not save all.

            “Pro life person saves fetus. Fetus lives. Fetus saved.”

            If the fetus is actually saved, then yes the fetus is saved. But must
            conceptions die. So most attempts to save a fetus will fail..

            “How is that just not clear?”

            If you had read what I wrote it would be clear to you that I agree with those points
            as they are answered. Your statements are however incomplete.

            “Explain. What do 7
            billion other people have to do with one fetus?”

            The 7 billion are the people that live on Earth. All life dies. So all are
            dying. And they are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second.

            “ What do 7 billion other people have to do with one baby? “

            The born baby is one of the people dying.

            “You -never- have explained that, over the course of how many days of being
            asked?”

            Most people understand what I am saying. If you don’t tell me you don’t
            understand, I cannot answer. And if you simply use ad hominem attacks rather
            that questions, then you have not asked a cogent question. If you have a
            question, ask it. Don’t expect me to understand your question if it is in the
            form of an ad hominem.

            “What is
            “saving” people?”

            Saving people is saving born humans.

            “ What is “saving” babies.”

            It is saving a born baby.

            “ What is “saving” fetus’?”

            It is actually saving what may or may not be human life and that may or may not
            be alive. A fetus cannot be proved to be human or alive until it is born.

            “ In what context do you mean that term?”

            I mean their life is extended for a period of time.

            “ Save them from what?”

            From dying if they can be saved to live longer. That determination is made via
            triage.

            “ From who or whom?”

            From death caused by any means.

            “ What does this “saving” entail.”

            Lifesaving measures, sometimes by medical care, sometimes by police actions,
            sometimes by furnishing insurance. The method of saving life is by whatever
            means necessary.

            “The rate of living
            people dying is eclipsed by the rate of birth.”

            Yes

            “ Your entire premise is faulty, if you believe our rate is dying faster than
            it’s born.”

            I have never said that.

            “ We covered that, three times. Just because you don’t like it, or close your
            eyes and hope that fact changes when you open them makes you no more correct.”

            You are lying I have never denied that more people are being born than die. In
            fact I said that the population is 7 billion and growing.

            “Pro lifers are not
            murdering babies.”

            They choose not to save babies.

            “ A statement which says otherwise is incompatible by it’s nature.”

            You choose to let born babies die.

            “ Why would someone who is pro life then kill a baby?”

            The reason you are doing it right now is because you are hard headed. You could
            this very instant start saving innocent born babies.

            “ Why would someone who is pro life kill a fetus, when that’s the opposite of
            what that term entails?”

            Because they are mislead by people like you. The fact is that all pro lifers
            have the choice to save innocent born babies or let them die. They are letting
            them die because of people like you that will not open your minds and think
            about what you are doing.

            “ How would a pro-lifer go about killing a baby?”

            By making the choice to ignore the fact it is dying. Pro lifers kill through
            the act of omission rather than commission.

            “ How would a pro lifer go about killing a fetus.”

            I assume you mean a wanted fetus.

            One of many ways is by letting it starve. Or allowing it to live without
            medical care. Or failing to help it have insurance.

            “Can you describe how
            aborting a fetus “saves” it.”

            I have never said aborting a fetus saves it.

            “ Can you detail why you believe that abortions have -increased- population
            rates, without quoting an out of context statistic from 1973?”

            Abortion allows women to plan a family and makes it more efficient, thereby
            inducing a family to have more children.

            “How are we letting
            born people die?”

            You make the intentional choice to let born humans die. You could just as
            easily choose to save them.

            “ Are we now talking about born people, as adults?”

            We are talking about wanted fetuses that will be born unless pro lifers kill
            them, babies, children and adults.

            “ You’re talking about abortion -saving- children.”

            It is not abortion saving children, it is the choice to save children that
            saves children. You cannot intentionally kill a fetus to save a baby, you can
            however save the most life possible. And morality requires that the most life
            be saved.

            “ You’re talking about babies.”

            Yes, babies are born.

            “ You’re talking about the life of a fetus.”

            A fetus may not have a life. Most conceptions are dead within the first
            trimester. With a fetus we speak of the potential life of the fetus.

            “ Can you stay on topic? As you like to say “Don’t confuse the
            reader”.”

            I am always on topic.

            “If you can just be
            intellectually honest about this one post….just this -one-….that’d be great.”

            You have already admitted you don’t read the posts. If you had read them you
            would know I have always be accurate and honest. .

            “All of those
            questions above have been posed, repeatedly. You haven’t answered a single one.”

            You are lying.

            “There. Short and
            simple. Can you work with this, or are you just going to copy/paste the same
            answers from before?”

            Your ad hominem statements are a waste of time.

          • MarcusFenix

            And yet…here we are. There are 17 questions in my posts, which you’ve yet to answer over the course of what, 3 days?

            I’m not going to go for really long winded posts, when you’re not even going to actually address the questions that were asked up front.

            You should likely stop using yourself as the professional reference to all your statements, as well. That’s as fallacious as it gets. In fact, I noticed 20 or more fallacies in just your last post, most of them intertwined with your “facts”. I had a lovely retort ready, and hit a button and lost it. You’re not worth retyping it for right now.

            Can you, or can you not, phrase the context of your premise directly, without saying the same ” but 1.8 born babies, children and adults continue to die each second.
            Saving one does not save all.” bit.

            Can you, or can you not, explain what you are trying to “save” a fetus, baby, or anyone else for that matter, from?

            Can you, or can you not, articulate exactly why you believe pro lifers murder babies. On it’s face, that fact is directly countered by placing those words in a row….pro lifers do not, regardless of how you phrase it or twist it, seek to murder any fetus or baby. Abortionists accomplish that directly…yet you’ve somehow been confused as to saying they don’t.

            Can you, or can you not, refute anything I’ve claimed, countered, or outlined and dismissed as incorrect or fallacious, without using yourself or your own website as the “end all, be all” of proof?

            I mean…it’s not hard. You just keep putting the same paragraph up, in different ways, as if saying it over and over means you’ve gained ground.

            No one here really agrees with you…which is another lovely tactic. Just because someone doesn’t exactly reply to everything you say, or because you don’t like the reply….does not mean they agree. As a specific fact, not a single person here has agreed with you at all. You’ve claimed they have.

            The bottom line, sir…you’re a liar. That’s not a strawman. That’s not me just sniping you for disagreement’s sake. You have done nothing but purposely lied, misconstrued, redirected, and twisted everything said here to suit yourself.

            As a point of mention…I did, in fact look you up for patents. Twice. Your name doesn’t appear as “Richard Crawford” anywhere. At best, I figure at least one of them is your book. You could just give the patent number…a link to it online….or actually say what it is. If you want money so badly, please go get a job and stop pretending to be someone, and something, you’re not.

            *sigh* The train wreck goes on. I’ll check for your absolutely predictable and repetetive diatribe again later. Try and actually answer questions this time…because at this point, what you’ve put up just makes me sad that someone is *as* delusional as you.

          • $24549613

            Marcus dear, this guy is beyond our help.

            He’s a self proclaimed “expert” but I’ve never heard of him… you’ve never heard of him… none of my my friends have heard of him…

            I really think Reagan did us all a disservice by closing up all the insane asylums… see what happens when they have no where to go?

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          Of course there is a reason both cannot be saved. If you spend 1 second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born babies die. So sure, you can save a fetus and every second you spend saving it 1.8 born babies die.

          • MarcusFenix

            *facepalm*

            Fine. Since longer posts aren’t your thing, we’ll do this one at at a time.

            What or who are you saving any of them from? Define the context of how you “save” someone. Save them from starvation? Save them from natural disaster? Angry badgers? Just that part to start, please. I don’t want to confuse any readers.

            I’ve asked this somewhere in the realm of over half a dozen times or so, still waiting for an answer to this. We can go over this bit by bit, but let’s actually define “save” before we get to anything more complicated. If we can get this knocked down, *everything* else will start to become clear.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            *facepalm*

            I don’t mind your lies and ad hominem sidecars but they are childish.

            “Fine. Since longer posts aren’t your thing, we’ll do this one at at a time.”

            You are lying.

            “What or who are you saving any of them from?”
            You .

            “Define the context of how you “save” someone.”

            I stop pro lfiers from killing them through acts of omission.

            ” Save them from starvation? Save them from natural disaster? Angry badgers? Just that part to start, please. I don’t want to confuse any readers.”

            Acts of omission by pro lifers. I have already explained this to you several times. Look back in my posts.

            “I’ve asked this somewhere in the realm of over half a dozen times or so, still waiting for an answer to this.”

            You are lying. Do you want a screen shot?

            We can go over this bit by bit, but let’s actually define “save” before we get to anything more complicated.”

            That is another falsehood on your part. You know what save means.

            ” If we can get this knocked down, *everything* else will start to become clear.”

            It is already knocked down. You are lying and everyone that is following this thread knows it.
            Now answer this. You have a choice to save babies or to kill them with acts of omission and attempt to save a dead fetus. Which do you murder, the fetus or the baby?

          • MarcusFenix

            You keep saying I’ve lied, and then conveniently leave out why. It’s fine if you want to believe it, because it apparently brings you comfort, but there is no deception on my part.

            It’s not really an ad hominem attack when I genuinely believe you are out of your mind. Saying you’re wrong isn’t a personal attack. Saying you’re a clear lying a$$hat is, but it doesn’t make it any less true in this case. If you wish to discuss lies, we could start with asking how many people agree with you…zero. You’re stating that you have scientists who agree. Hell, you’ve said *I* agree with you. You’ve said that people here agree. None of those statements are true. We could go on and on, but it would just be repetitive, as are your insane statements. And they are insane, ad homimen or not.

            Asking you to explain, plainly and directly, what “saving” someone entails is not a “lie”. It’s a question. Your posts above don’t really detail that very well, if at all. Had you done so, I wouldn’t have to keep asking. The “lie” is that you believe using the same 5 phrases over and over counts as an explanation. That, in and of itself, is a fallacy. Specifically, it’s the Homunculus Fallacy, whereby you believe using the concept in terms of itself, without having ever explained that context directly. The middle man, in this case, would be yourself, or your website. It then becomes circular because you use yourself as the starting point, then use your own website and labels/items you’ve created in order to prove what you’re saying is true, thereby preventing anyone (in your view) from being able to mount a suitable defense. By that fact, I could just say that because I said you’re wrong first, I must be correct, and use my own words as proof.

            As I said before, using yourself as the basis for scientific fact, in this case in the role of an expert, in an argument is foolish and deceptive. I already know your response will be “I’m not an expert, I just observe.” But you’re using your website and Crawford, which you’re claiming to be, AS proof. You’re claiming to have used your own scientific law to arrive at a conclusion…yours, by way of the fact as you’ve named it. Yet, I clearly demonstrated why your laws were flawed and invalid. Your response was that I was wrong, because it was science. You never address “why”
            it was wrong otherwise. In a nutshell, your argument boils down to the same sets of text, over and over. When that doesn’t work, you simply claim yourself as the resource material, and then say we’re all wrong. That would be the several fallacies, including the False Attribution. Remember how you’ve claimed I’m lying and “everyone knows it”? Argumentum Ad Populum. I would not be lying by saying that people here do not, in fact, agree with anything you’ve said…and the posts around these can show that plainly. The only person you’ve shown here so far to agree with you or your “ideas”….is you. Unless there’s more than one of you, which in your head may possibly be true, then you can’t make that claim.

            Using yourself…to explain yourself…isn’t answering the question, by the way. Repeating the same lines over and over, with no definition of terms, isn’t answering the question. It’s simply repeating the same crap over and over, expecting someone else to just agree.

            That, sir, is a fallacy. Total and absolute. Not a lie. Not misdirection. I point blank asked you a question. You didn’t answer except with the same “1.8 babies…..” line. It’s just that simple. You’ve done it here again, when you said “you know what saving means”. I fully understand the Webster’s Dictionary version of the word. asked for you to detail your context on it directly. You’ve-barely done that here, with bringing in this “death by omission” deal, which doesn’t explain anything in context yet again. So when i ask for you to explain, directly, and you don’t…..I’m lying by doing so?

            See how ridiculous that is, on it’s face?

            Now, I’ll say this again, because by way of ad hominem being true yet again, you just don’t grasp what’s being said. You’re doing it on purpose, I think, because being intellectually honest about anything you’ve said would put you in the realm of common sense, and the sentence “pro lifers murder babies” would suddenly (and based on the english language) become a phrase you’d never say again.

            I believe there’s one other issue here….hubris. You’ve gotten to the point where you believe your observations are correct. All of them. The moment you came to a point where you believed (and have demonstrated here repeatedly) that you could not be wrong, no matter what anyone else has said, you in fact became incorrect yourself. There is no immutable truth in your statements. I don’t even believe you’ve come to a point where you believe that it’s even possible you’re wrong. Yet, time and time again we have shown you are, and the best retort is a copy/paste of your arguments and asking us to defend a position. The oddity here is, you’re assaulting a position, then attacking ours, and then asking us to defend our position while yours has no actual, factual, or scientific data to attack from the start. Trying to put someone on the defensive about their own argument while you use yours to justify anything under the sun is intellectually vapid and dishonest. When you post your position, and we logically refute it, coming back and saying “you didn’t prove what I said about you” becomes meaningless……because we *already* proved that your premise was incorrect to start with, and you just refuse to accept it. That’s not a discussion, or a logical debate. That’s you repeating something with no basis in fact, from an incorrect and fallacious position, and basically whining about it in the interim.

            Addressing your “argument” now:

            Your premise about pro-life people seeking death of a fetus, or a baby, by omission is a false premise, and an outright lie. Because that is untrue on it’s face, it devastates the rest of your conclusions. Your explanations of this “omission” were based on what, poverty.org stats for starving -people- around the world? Your fallacy with the premise starts with the incorrect conclusion using words that do not group together to make a point, and then directly jump to this omission. Either you’re talking about people as a whole, or you’re talking about a fetus, or baby, independently. Logically, you can’t take an individual argument, apply it to 7 billion other people, and then return to the individual argument expecting an answer. One cause does not support the other. One set of facts and data does not support the other. Further, in the context of which you frame the discussion, you can either talk about the natural law of life and death with regards to human existence, or you can discuss your sets of omissions on a case by case basis. Stick with one argument.

            Take the example of a pro-life person talking to a woman about to enter an abortion clinic. They have a calm, rational discussion for quite some time, and when its done, the woman decides that she’ll have the child and give it up for adoption. To any sane observer, this is a life “saved”..spared, even. The statement now becomes “pro lifers helped save and/or spare this fetus”. When the child is born, it becomes “pro-lifers helped save and/or spare this child.” The two are directly tied to one another. You erroneously dissect those two statements, as if they are independent of one another. The 8 week old fetus continues to grow, and live, until it’s born and starts it’s life here on the outside of the womb. Assuming the mother had no medical complications, then there’s no death. No murder. It’s possible then to, if you wish, expand that to every other example of a fetus that grows and is born as a live child. There’s no death. There’s no murder. Each case involves a child that is born, alive and well. Nothing more, and nothing less. This very simple, common sense example is easy enough to refute your entire premise of having to save one another. Did it not occur to you that by saving a fetus…you were then saving the very same child? Your rationale seems to extend from one person to another, but never takes into account the individual case of which you cite. It’s intellectually dishonest to conclude otherwise. By virtue, my formulas from before are proven (like the common sense it is) valid. But read on, please.

            By your statement, someone was just murdered. You’ve made multiple claims about who this would be, here and on your site (such as the intentional child vs “accidental” one, perhaps?). All of those are likewise logically false. By saving a life, you don’t murder, by omission or otherwise, any other individual. The formula of “save one baby = save one baby” takes effect. There’s no additional parts to this idea. There is no cause and effect relationship, whereby the woman here having a child starves a 23 year old man in Zimbabwe. It does not “take up space for an intentional child”, because had the woman been wanting to get pregnant in that general time frame, she wouldn’t be seeking to end it at the same time. Those two ideas are not compatible. If she considered the pregnancy an accident and then wanted to get an abortion as a result…she wouldn’t turn around a week later and go “Ok, this time, we’re really gonna have a kid. That one from last week was just horrible timing!”

            Just in case, because I’m aware of your mentality (and stuff from your site) the “accidental” child coming to term never actually “murders” a wanted child. You cannot destroy what does not exist. It’s a nice play on some emotional level, but if you’re using science, as you like to claim…you know that it’s impossible to destroy anything that does not already exist. In this way, “saving” a fetus does not mean “murdering” a baby….either by omission of its existence, or any other means. No matter the argument, -that- is science. It’s also good common sense.

            Your lie of omission, as it continues on, does not cause a pro-life advocate to murder anything. Take a moment to break down your sentence. Murder implies intent, first and foremost. If the intent of a pro-life advocate is to save and preserve life, then you cannot then attribute their actions as murder. The terms are incompatible. Your phrasing makes it sound like someone advocates to save the life of a baby, and then shoots someone in the crowd with a rifle, to keep things even. It is clear this doesn’t happen.

            There is no example of which you can cite that would purposely conclude that pro-life advocacy in fact causes murders to occur. Re-hashing of your “But 1.8…..” statements doesn’t act as proof of this fact. Proof requires actual data, not your opinion.

            An additional lie with regard to your “omission” issue is that by a woman having a baby here, that it is causing the death of someone else in a third world country…that’s the one of the only thing that you could use the poverty.org stats for otherwise, really. That, on it’s face and factually, is also erroneous.

            Now, I can tie your thoughts with this directly to your poverty.org statements, and why those are concretely false.

            Directly, a 23 year old man in Africa is starving right this minute. There’s no omission, by anyone here, to cause this. If we can safely reason that he was starving yesterday, and the day before..then a woman who gets pregnant today isn’t exacerbating the problem. She didn’t create that problem. That issue already existed for him prior to the event. There is no cause and effect by way of someone having a child, where they are causing the death of another by lack of resource. The person in our example there was already in danger of starvation by omission of food…not by omission where a child that is in it’s first stages of conception has used up. Not by omission where it was some evil pro-lifer, twirling their mustache and cackling while pulling the strings of life and death.

            In effect, the only omission that goes on is by other living people, by their choices. Not in respect to whether you create a life or not, but by other external factors. Addressing poverty or death in 3rd world countries has nothing to do with pro-life policies here at home. Even if you tried to create the link between poverty and birth here at home, that is simply attaching a set of changeable, temporary circumstances to the issue of life and death. Poverty can, and has been, overcome many times, with people taking control of their lives and doing great things. I was born into a poor family, like a decent number of people. Yet, I am financially independent and enjoy life. I don’t have to work a 9-5 and break my back to achieve the things in life I wish to have. I still work hard, but I don’t fit your paradigm, as do countless others who chose to do better, chose to persevere, and who can now enjoy the fruit of that labor. Your example would doom everyone to a gutter. It’s not that there aren’t ghettos and gutters..but there isn’t anything that forces people to remain there.

            To cut to the chase…pro lifers advocate that people should allow children the chance to come into the world, and be free to make their own way. If you allow for rape/incest/life of the mother, those don’t fall into the “omit” category, more than then fall into the “exception”. There is a difference between the two, whether you choose to accept that or not. Choosing life doesn’t mean conversely choosing death elsewhere.

            But can you “save” 7 billion people? That is simply a play on words, with you twisting logic around to make it seem as if there is a correlation between saving people, them being born, and their eventual death. If all things born will die, then on a long enough time line, you cannot save any of them. This specific idea would, conversely, mean you couldn’t save anyone at all. Therefore, even in this example and with this phrasing, your premise is completely false. You’re claim is that you have to save one or the other. With this position though, because all things die…there is no “saving” anything. Therefore, the choice to “save” something would be invalid because there is no “saving” them at all. When you then attempt to put things back into the “well, there’s 7 billion people dying” framework, and then ask us to make a choice of who to “save”….you dismiss out of hand the fact that, at least in the sense of attempting to preserve life as long as possible, that the answer is “everyone”.

            If we really were omitting people as you believe, we’d not have outreach programs to the poor and needy. There wouldn’t be any charity groups going to places and delivering food. The Red Cross wouldn’t exist. The Salvation Army would be just “a good idea”. It’s not that we -choose- to not help people. That is erroneous.

            It’s also not the scope of a pro life advocacy to go and feed the poor in a 3rd world country. That falls under a different umbrella. If you’re asking about going to 3rd world countries and helping promote such a cause there, that’s one thing. But you’re directly attributing circumstances and events that fall far outside of the scope of the pro-life/abortion debate, as if they applied directly. They, by any real measure, do not. As the children’s song goes…”One of these things…isn’t like the other!””

            If you believe that there we do omit selectively, then any proof (and I mean stats, statements, scientific data you didn’t pull off your own site, and that sort of thing) would have been helpful. Linking poverty.org, or WHO stats, only justified that we can see people who are in trouble outside of the womb, and who are not babies. One baby in trouble somewhere doesn’t facilitate ALL babies are in trouble, everywhere. That is another kind of fallacy, to believe in such.

            I get that you’re trying to play connect the dots with all of your theories and psuedo-laws. But those dots don’t line up that way at all. The chain of facts are interconnected, and you’re trying to restructure them for your own purpose, and not admitting to just the base reality around you.

            I have now, once again, refuted everything you’ve claimed, and done so from multiple points of view. Am I lying, or do you just not agree? There’s no attempt at misdirection, no facts of which cannot be verified, no lies or obscfucation on my part. Simply fact, told directly, in a consistent and precise way. I have no need to lie, and personally detest those who do. You, however, have done everything in your power to twist the words of others, to use yourself as the guiding light and authority on matters of which you aren’t qualified to be an authority, and simply claim everyone agrees and that people like me are liars….when it’s the exact opposite of that.

            Unfortunately…business calls. I have a flight later this morning out of Dulles, and I’ll be out of town for at least 3 days taking care of contractual obligations and meeting clients. Likely, this thread will be closed by the time I get back, and I’m not going to check my personal email while I’m out because I’ll be a bit busy. If i decide to chill for a few days while i’m out, since i don’t have to be back until Tuesday, I might read a retort if it’s posted, but likely this is the end of this posting for me.

            At the end of the day…I just think you’re wrong. I think you really need to take a minute, take a step back, and examine your premise. You don’t seem to take criticism very well, at least when it comes directly to your ideas. As much as it’s been interesting wasting all of this time and text, it only changes the very minor fact that we’ve been exposed to your ideas. People, myself included, have refuted those ideas. You’re going to say we haven’t as you’ve done below and above multiple times. Yet, when we do, you simply ignore them, or repeat the same mantra again. It doesn’t make it “science”. It doesn’t warp itself into a factually cohesive argument on your part.

            As I’ve said before….just because you say it, doesn’t make it so.

            And for the record…there were, in fact, 17 individual questions in that one post. You didn’t directly answer *any* of them in your reply. You claimed you did, but those weren’t answers. They were you, using your own website and your own concept….to explain itself. That is also another type of fallacy.

            Anyway…it’s been fun, but I’ll leave you with this exit question, to ponder in the days ahead, with regards to one possible reason pro life people feel and think the way they do.

            If there is no such thing as saving people, since we’re all going to die…why not sterilize every single person so that humans die out? Would it not be better, since we cannot be “saved”?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            §
            “You keep saying I’ve
            lied, and then conveniently leave out why. It’s fine if you want to believe it,
            because it apparently brings you comfort, but there is no deception on my
            part.”

            You have lied and I have pointed out your lies each time you lied. The statement
            above is a lie.— Let me make this clear. You are evidently unable to tell
            when you are lying and when you are telling the truth. I think that people that
            read what you write and compare it to what I have actually said will be aware
            that you are being untruthful.

            “It’s
            not really an ad hominem attack when I genuinely believe you are out of your
            mind”

            It is an ad hominem attack that has no basis in fact.

            “ Saying you’re wrong isn’t a personal attack.”

            You are lying again, by inference. You don’t just say I am wrong.

            “ Saying you’re a clear lying a$$hat is, but it doesn’t make it any less true
            in this case. If you wish to discuss lies, we could start with asking how many
            people agree with you…zero.”

            I have 42000 likes on facebook, surely one of those agrees with me, right?

            “ You’re stating that you have scientists who agree. Hell, you’ve said *I*
            agree with you. You’ve said that people here agree. None of those statements
            are true.”

            You agree with me that you don’t read all I post, right? Everyone that is a
            scientist agrees that life is continuous, which is what i said and you are now
            attempting to build into a strawman argument. You take things out of context,
            mix them with other non related things and then build a strawman that you can
            knock down. That may work in your mind, but it is just a strawman argument and
            is worthless.

            “ We could go on and on, but it would just be repetitive, as are your insane
            statements. And they are insane, ad homimen or not.”

            No, it is all a lie and strawman argument.

            “Asking
            you to explain, plainly and directly, what “saving” someone entails
            is not a “lie”. It’s a question.”

            It is a lie, you know what saving someone entails. Your lie is in acting as if
            you don’t.

            “ Your posts above don’t really detail that very well, if at all. Had you done
            so, I wouldn’t have to keep asking.”

            That is a lie. You are asking because you want to harass.

            “ The “lie” is that you believe using the same 5 phrases over and
            over counts as an explanation.

            When you ask the same question, you will get the same answer.

            “ That, in and of itself, is a fallacy. Specifically, it’s the Homunculus
            Fallacy,”

            Homunculus fallacy – where a “middle-man”
            is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men.
            Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a
            process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself,
            without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought
            as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the
            head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the
            same).[

            whereby you believe using the concept in
            terms of itself, without having ever explained that context directly. The
            middle man, in this case, would be yourself, or your website

            Tehre is no middle man, I am the man that saw the scientific fact and reported
            it. The site is the report I filed. The laws I observe can be observed by
            anyone.

            “ It then becomes circular because you use yourself as the starting point, then
            use your own website and labels/items you’ve created in order to prove what
            you’re saying is true,”

            Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins
            with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the
            conclusion.

            “ thereby preventing anyone (in your view) from being able to mount a suitable
            defense. By that fact, I could just say that because I said you’re wrong first,
            I must be correct, and use my own words as proof.”

            I begin with the fact that there are 7 billion people dying and that it is
            impossible to save them. Then I show that one must choose which life to save
            because there are more people dying than can be saved. At no point do I use any
            proof that is not scientifi9cally deductable independent of my conclusion or my
            personal beliefs.

            “As
            I said before, using yourself as the basis for scientific fact, in this case in
            the role of an expert, in an argument is foolish and deceptive.”

            That is a straw man argument. I hve
            never myself as a source or an expert. You are making that up. It is another
            lie.

            “ I already know your response will be “I’m not an expert, I just
            observe.” But you’re using your website and Crawford, which you’re
            claiming to be, AS proof.”

            That is another lie. Neither the website nor I are the proof of anything. The
            website and I have shown an observation. The observations are described and
            they describe the laws. You are welcome to attack the law, I have invited you
            to do that. Yet all you have donee so far is offer straw men, ad hominem
            attacks and lies.

            “ You’re claiming to have used your own scientific law to arrive at a
            conclusion…yours, by way of the fact as you’ve named it.”

            That is another lie. I have specifically denied creating anyy law. I have
            reported what I see as laws. I did not create them.

            “ Yet, I clearly demonstrated why your laws were flawed and invalid. Your
            response was that I was wrong, because it was science. You never address
            “why””

            I explained to you clearly that you had created a straw man argument. How can I
            answer better than that?

            “it was wrong otherwise.”

            You admitted you did not read it, how can you know if it was wrong/?

            “ In a nutshell, your argument boils down to the same sets of text, over and over.”

            You get the same answer when you ask the same questions.

            “ When that doesn’t work, you simply claim yourself as the resource material,
            and then say we’re all wrong.”

            That is a lie.

            “That would be the several fallacies,
            including the False Attribution.”

            False attribution

            From
            Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            The fallacy of a false
            attribution occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified,
            unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument. A contextomy
            is a type of false attribution.

            A
            more deceptive and difficult to detect version of a false attribution is where
            a fraudulent advocate goes so far as to fabricate a source, such as creating a
            fake website, in order to support a claim. For example, the “Levitt Institute”
            was a fake organisation created in 2009 solely for the purposes of
            (successfully) fooling the Australian media into reporting that Sydney was
            Australia’s most naive city.[1]

            A
            particular case of misattribution is the Matthew effect: a quotation is
            often attributed to someone more famous than the real author. This leads the
            quotation to be more famous, but the real author to be forgotten (see also: obliteration by incorporation).[2]

            I use sources such as the CDC, the
            Statistical Abstract and scietific pagpers and books. So that is another
            lie.

            “ Remember how you’ve claimed I’m lying and “everyone knows it”?
            Argumentum Ad Populum. I would not be lying by saying that people here do not,
            in fact, agree with anything you’ve said…and the posts around these can show
            that plainly.”

            Every person has access to the examples I have posted of your lies. If they
            read, they know.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford


            Poverty can, and has been, overcome many times, with people taking control of
            their lives and doing great things. I was born into a poor family, like a
            decent number of people. Yet, I am financially independent and enjoy life. I
            don’t have to work a 9-5 and break my back to achieve the things in life I wish
            to have. I still work hard, but I don’t fit your paradigm, as do countless
            others who chose to do better, chose to persevere, and who can now enjoy the
            fruit of that labor. Your example would doom everyone to a gutter. It’s not
            that there aren’t ghettos and gutters..but there isn’t anything that forces
            people to remain there. “

            I really don’t care what a “special” person you think you are. I only care that
            you kill born life, intentionally, in an effort to force the birth of fetuses.

            “To
            cut to the chase…pro lifers advocate that people should allow children the
            chance to come into the world, and be free to make their own way.”

            No, you don’t. You want babies to be born and you want to kill other babies to
            force that to happen. You do it because you are hard headed and will not change
            your mind. You murder innocent babies and my goal in life is to expose you.

            “ If you allow for rape/incest/life of the mother, those don’t fall into the
            “omit” category, more than then fall into the “exception”.
            There is a difference between the two, whether you choose to accept that or
            not. Choosing life doesn’t mean conversely choosing death elsewhere.”

            It doesn’t matter the excuse for the abortion. The only thing that matters is
            that you murder born babies to force birth.

            “But
            can you “save” 7 billion people? That is simply a play on words, with
            you twisting logic around to make it seem as if there is a correlation between
            saving people, them being born, and their eventual death.”

            Don’t lie about the origin of that statement. That statement is in response to
            your claim that you could save all life. You have now taken it out of context
            and are trying to use it for a different purpose. It won’t work, your straw man
            has been caught.

            “ If all things born will die, then on a long enough time line, you cannot save
            any of them. This specific idea would, conversely, mean you couldn’t save
            anyone at all. Therefore, even in this example and with this phrasing, your
            premise is completely false.”

            Again with the fake “save” delimma. You are trying to construct a straw man
            that is based upon the fact that “save” doesn’t mean save. Save means save.
            Everyone knows that all people die. So don’t go there, you have been caught.

            “ You’re claim is that you have to save one or the other. With this position
            though, because all things die…there is no “saving” anything.
            Therefore, the choice to “save” something would be invalid because
            there is no “saving” them at all. When you then attempt to put things
            back into the “well, there’s 7 billion people dying” framework, and
            then ask us to make a choice of who to “save”….you dismiss out of
            hand the fact that, at least in the sense of attempting to preserve life as
            long as possible, that the answer is “everyone”.”

            You know the meaning of the word save, stop playing games.

            “If
            we really were omitting people as you believe, we’d not have outreach programs
            to the poor and needy. There wouldn’t be any charity groups going to places and
            delivering food. The Red Cross wouldn’t exist. The Salvation Army would be just
            “a good idea”. It’s not that we -choose- to not help people. That is
            erroneous. “

            You have a choice to save born people or to let them die, you choose to let
            them die. If you think you need to be patted on the back for saving your
            friends and letting others die, ask for a pat. I am sure someone cares.

            “It’s
            also not the scope of a pro life advocacy to go and feed the poor in a 3rd
            world country. That falls under a different umbrella. If you’re asking about
            going to 3rd world countries and helping promote such a cause there, that’s one
            thing. But you’re directly attributing circumstances and events that fall far
            outside of the scope of the pro-life/abortion debate, as if they applied
            directly. They, by any real measure, do not. As the children’s song
            goes…”One of these things…isn’t like the other!”””

            If you let born babies die to save fetuses, then you are not pro life, you are
            pro fetus, and to hell with everyone else.

            “If
            you believe that there we do omit selectively, then any proof (and I mean
            stats, statements, scientific data you didn’t pull off your own site, and that
            sort of thing) would have been helpful. Linking poverty.org,
            or WHO stats, only justified that we can see people who are in trouble outside
            of the womb, and who are not babies. One baby in trouble somewhere doesn’t
            facilitate ALL babies are in trouble, everywhere. That is another kind of
            fallacy, to believe in such. “

            You have all the information you need to see that there are 7 billion people
            dying. If you claim you don’t have enough, then make that your leg and stand on
            it. I will simply give everyone else the same information I give you. I think
            they will see it my way.

            “I
            get that you’re trying to play connect the dots with all of your theories and
            psuedo-laws. But those dots don’t line up that way at all. The chain of facts
            are interconnected, and you’re trying to restructure them for your own purpose,
            and not admitting to just the base reality around you.”

            It is my intent to label the pro life movement as murders. I have been pretty
            successful so far. So make that argument and we will see where it gets you.

            “I
            have now, once again, refuted everything you’ve claimed, and done so from
            multiple points of view. Am I lying, or do you just not agree?”

            I have proved you are lying and that you are so far gone that you cannot even
            see your on lies. I have posted links to the fallacies you claim are valid and
            proved your statements are all based on straw man arguments.

            “ There’s no attempt at misdirection, no facts of which cannot be verified, no
            lies or obscfucation on my part.”

            The sad part is that you probably believe that to be true. I have outlined your
            lies and made them where a normal person can understand them. We can let others
            decide.

            “ Simply fact, told directly, in a consistent and precise way. I have no need
            to lie, and personally detest those who do.”

            I have gone into detail showing your lies to all that choose to read this post.

            “ You, however, have done everything in your power to twist the words of
            others, to use yourself as the guiding light and authority on matters of which
            you aren’t qualified to be an authority, and simply claim everyone agrees and
            that people like me are liars….when it’s the exact opposite of that.”

            That is nothing but a ad hominem attack with no basis in fact.

            “Unfortunately…business
            calls. I have a flight later this morning out of Dulles, and I’ll be out of
            town for at least 3 days taking care of contractual obligations and meeting
            clients. Likely, this thread will be closed by the time I get back, and I’m not
            going to check my personal email while I’m out because I’ll be a bit busy. If i
            decide to chill for a few days while i’m out, since i don’t have to be back
            until Tuesday, I might read a retort if it’s posted, but likely this is the end
            of this posting for me. “

            Why would anyone believe that line.

            “At
            the end of the day…I just think you’re wrong. I think you really need to take
            a minute, take a step back, and examine your premise. You don’t seem to take
            criticism very well, at least when it comes directly to your ideas. As much as
            it’s been interesting wasting all of this time and text, it only changes the
            very minor fact that we’ve been exposed to your ideas. People, myself included,
            have refuted those ideas. You’re going to say we haven’t as you’ve done below
            and above multiple times. Yet, when we do, you simply ignore them, or repeat
            the same mantra again. It doesn’t make it “science”. It doesn’t warp
            itself into a factually cohesive argument on your part.”

            I don’t ignore your ideas, I want your ideas exposed. They are without merit
            and based upon a lack of understand of what a “fallacy” is and an understand of
            what a straw man argument is. You have take things out of context, built straw
            men and knocked them down. The problem is that you have been corrected. Your
            straw men didn’t work.

            “As
            I’ve said before….just because you say it, doesn’t make it so”

            I never said it did. I simply reflect and speak about scientific laws that you
            are trying to hide. You will fail..

            “And
            for the record…there were, in fact, 17 individual questions in that one post.
            You didn’t directly answer *any* of them in your reply. You claimed you did,
            but those weren’t answers. They were you, using your own website and your own
            concept….to explain itself. That is also another type of fallacy.”

            I answered your straw man posts as they should be answered. Everyone here knows
            the meaning of the word “saved” and your posting was likely taken as a joke by
            anyone that read it.

            “Anyway…it’s
            been fun, but I’ll leave you with this exit question, to ponder in the days
            ahead, with regards to one possible reason pro life people feel and think the
            way they do.”

            I sense the imminent posting of a straw man reply.

            “If
            there is no such thing as saving people, since we’re all going to die…why not
            sterilize every single person so that humans die out? Would it not be better,
            since we cannot be “saved”?”

            Wow, I was right. You have built a straw man that you can knock down. Who would
            have expected that?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford


            The only person you’ve shown here so far to agree with you or your
            “ideas”….is you. Unless there’s more than one of you, which in your
            head may possibly be true, then you can’t make that claim.”

            That is simply you violating your own posted fallacy.

            “Using
            yourself…to explain yourself…isn’t answering the question, by the way”

            I have never used myself as a source. That is another of your lies.

            “. Repeating the same lines over and over, with no definition of terms, isn’t
            answering the question. It’s simply repeating the same crap over and over,
            expecting someone else to just agree. “

            Asking for the definition of the word “save” is simply your form of harassment.
            I will not participate. You kinow the meaning of the word.

            “That,
            sir, is a fallacy. Total and absolute. Not a lie. Not misdirection. I point
            blank asked you a question. You didn’t answer except with the same “1.8
            babies…..” line. It’s just that simple. You’ve done it here again, when
            you said “you know what saving means”. I fully understand the
            Webster’s Dictionary version of the word. asked for you to detail your context
            on it directly..

            No, you know the meaning. I will not participate in your game.

            “ You’ve-barely done that here, with bringing in this “death by
            omission” deal, which doesn’t explain anything in context yet again. So
            when i ask for you to explain, directly, and you don’t…..I’m lying by doing
            so? “

            Yes, you are lying. As evidence I offer your ad hominem expressions and your demand for copies of my
            patents. You are clearly trying to harass.

            “See
            how ridiculous that is, on it’s face?”Now, I’ll say this again, because by way
            of ad hominem being true yet again, you just don’t grasp what’s being said.
            You’re doing it on purpose, I think, because being intellectually honest about
            anything you’ve said would put you in the realm of common sense, and the
            sentence “pro lifers murder babies” would suddenly (and based on the
            english language) become a phrase you’d never say again.”

            Your ad hominem statements are waste of time.

            “I
            believe there’s one other issue here….hubris. You’ve gotten to the point
            where you believe your observations are correct. All of them. The moment you
            came to a point where you believed (and have demonstrated here repeatedly) that
            you could not be wrong, no matter what anyone else has said, you in fact became
            incorrect yourself. There is no immutable truth in your statements. I don’t
            even believe you’ve come to a point where you believe that it’s even possible
            you’re wrong. Yet, time and time again we have shown you are, and the best
            retort is a copy/paste of your arguments and asking us to defend a position.
            The oddity here is, you’re assaulting a position, then attacking ours, and then
            asking us to defend our position while yours has no actual, factual, or
            scientific data to attack from the start. Trying to put someone on the
            defensive about their own argument while you use yours to justify anything
            under the sun is intellectually vapid and dishonest. When you post your
            position, and we logically refute it, coming back and saying “you didn’t
            prove what I said about you” becomes meaningless……because we *already*
            proved that your premise was incorrect to start with, and you just refuse to
            accept it. That’s not a discussion, or a logical debate. That’s you repeating
            something with no basis in fact, from an incorrect and fallacious position, and
            basically whining about it in the interim.”

            Your ad hominem paragraphs are also a waste of time.

            “Addressing
            your “argument” now:

            “Your
            premise about pro-life people seeking death of a fetus, or a baby, by omission
            is a false premise, and an outright lie”

            You are attempting to build another straw man here. The context of the
            statement is related to a discussion of the laws. You have taken it out of
            c0ontext and placed it as a stand alone argument. You are trying to lie about
            the context.

            “. Because that is untrue on it’s face, it devastates the rest of your
            conclusions.”

            You have taken it out of context. In context the fact is that if you are aware
            of the laws, as you are, and you continue to kill babies, then you are killing
            by omission. If you are not aware of the laws, then you are killing by accident
            or without knowledge of your murders.

            “ Your explanations of this “omission” were based on what, poverty.org stats for starving -people- around
            the world?”

            That is a lie. It is only an example.
            Please stop lying


            Your fallacy with the premise starts with the incorrect conclusion using words
            that do not group together to make a point,”

            That is another lie. My page is very clear. Go to http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com
            and you will be proved a liar. The page starts with a description of what the
            observation is and then backs up the observation with citations and that is
            followed with theories.

            “ and then directly jump to this omission.”

            You are lying, there are no omissions on my part. .

            “ Either you’re talking about people as a whole, or you’re talking about a
            fetus, or baby, independently.”

            No, I make it clear which group I am speaking of . I make it clear that I speak
            of born people and unborn fetuses. You are lying.

            “ Logically, you can’t take an individual argument, apply it to 7 billion other
            people, and then return to the individual argument expecting an answer.”

            That is a straw man you are trying to pass off. I do not claim the individual
            is the same as the group.

            “ One cause does not support the other. One set of facts and data does not
            support the other. Further, in the context of which you frame the discussion,
            you can either talk about the natural law of life and death with regards to human
            existence, or you can discuss your sets of omissions on a case by case basis.
            Stick with one argument.”

            That is entirely a straw man argument you have constructed and has no bearing
            on the laws or anything I have said.

            “Take
            the example of a pro-life person talking to a woman about to enter an abortion
            clinic. They have a calm, rational discussion for quite some time, and when its
            done, the woman decides that she’ll have the child and give it up for adoption.”

            That is a straw man argument. To be reflective of the Scientific laws the pro
            lifers would have to tell the woman that according to scientific fact 1.8 born
            babies will die each second that he is attempting to talk her into not
            aborting.

            “ To any sane observer, this is a life “saved”..spared, even.”

            It is an example of pro lifers letting 1.8 babies die each second to save a
            fetus.

            “ The statement now becomes “pro lifers helped save and/or spare this
            fetus”. When the child is born, it becomes “pro-lifers helped save
            and/or spare this child.” The two are directly tied to one another.”

            It is an example of a pro lifer killing several born children to save a fetus
            that may not be human or alive. .

            “ You erroneously dissect those two statements, as if they are independent of
            one another.”

            No, you have given a perfect example of how pro lifers murder babies.

            “ The 8 week old fetus continues to grow, and live, until it’s born and starts
            it’s life here on the outside of the womb. Assuming the mother had no medical
            complications, then there’s no death. No murder. It’s possible then to, if you
            wish, expand that to every other example of a fetus that grows and is born as a
            live child. There’s no death. There’s no murder. Each case involves a child
            that is born, alive and well. Nothing more, and nothing less.”

            There is quite a bit more and less. You have murdered countless born humans and
            you have forced the birth of an unwanted child and will be the cause of it suffering. You have stolen the rights and have insulted the woman. You have
            proved to be a murderer and liar.

            “ This very simple, common sense example is easy enough to refute your entire
            premise of having to save one another. Did it not occur to you that by saving a
            fetus…you were then saving the very same child?”

            It is fine with me if you save the fetus. But you must murder a born person to
            do so..

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford


            Your rationale seems to extend from one person to another, but never takes into
            account the individual case of which you cite. It’s intellectually dishonest to
            conclude otherwise. By virtue, my formulas from before are proven (like the
            common sense it is) valid. But read on, please.”

            It is not my “rational” it is scientific fact based upon scientific law. You
            need to address the laws just as I asked you to do.

            “By
            your statement, someone was just murdered. You’ve made multiple claims about
            who this would be, here and on your site (such as the intentional child vs
            “accidental” one, perhaps?). All of those are likewise logically
            false. By saving a life, you don’t murder, by omission or otherwise, any other
            individual.”

            If you know that babies are dying and you claim to be pro life, and you attempt
            to save a fetus that may not be alive, then you are letting what you know to be
            a human life die so that you can save what may not be a human life. You can
            continue to do that, it is something I cannot control, but you are murdering
            one baby to save a fetus that may not be alive or human. That makes you a
            murderer.

            “The formula of “save one baby =
            save one baby” takes effect.”

            You kill a baby with you attempt to save a fetus. You must murder 1.8 babies
            each second to save a fetus.

            “ There’s no additional parts to this idea. There is no cause and effect
            relationship, whereby the woman here having a child starves a 23 year old man
            in Zimbabwe”

            She doesn’t starve anyone if it is her baby. You murder babies by choosing to
            let them die and choosing to force tghe birth of a fetus that is not yours. Pro
            lifers are the murderers, not women.

            .” It does not “take up space for an intentional child”, because had
            the woman been wanting to get pregnant in that general time frame, she wouldn’t
            be seeking to end it at the same time.”

            You are attempting a straw man argument again. What the woman does of her own
            volition has nothing to do with the fact that you choose to force her to give
            birth. If you choose to save the fetus, the baby dies.

            “ Those two ideas are not compatible. If she considered the pregnancy an
            accident and then wanted to get an abortion as a result…she wouldn’t turn
            around a week later and go “Ok, this time, we’re really gonna have a kid.
            That one from last week was just horrible timing!”

            A woman can choose when to give birth, it is her right and saves life. You
            choosing to murder a born baby to save her fetus is where the error in logic
            occurs. You muyrder born life to save fetuses. That is insane.

            “Just
            in case, because I’m aware of your mentality (and stuff from your site) the
            “accidental” child coming to term never actually “murders”
            a wanted child.”

            No one ever said having one child murders another. That is just another lie you
            tell.

            “ You cannot destroy what does not exist. It’s a nice play on some emotional
            level, but if you’re using science, as you like to claim…you know that it’s
            impossible to destroy anything that does not already exist.”

            That is another lie. I do not say that you destroy the life, I say you destroy
            the opportunity for life. Please place my words in context and don ‘t lie about
            what I say.

            “ In this way, “saving” a fetus does not mean “murdering” a
            baby….either by omission of its existence, or any other means. No matter the
            argument, -that- is science. It’s also good common sense.”

            Please don’t lie about what I say. I make it clear exactly when pro lifers
            murder babies. And I make it clear when they deny life. This is an example of a
            pro lifer denying life.

            “Your
            lie of omission, as it continues on, does not cause a pro-life advocate to
            murder anything. Take a moment to break down your sentence. Murder implies
            intent, first and foremost.”

            “ If the intent of a pro-life advocate is to save and preserve life, then you
            cannot then attribute their actions as murder. The terms are incompatible. Your
            phrasing makes it sound like someone advocates to save the life of a baby, and
            then shoots someone in the crowd with a rifle, to keep things even. It is clear
            this doesn’t happen.”

            All pro lifers that are aware of the Scientific Laws and continue to be pro
            lfie are murderers.

            “There
            is no example of which you can cite that would purposely conclude that pro-life
            advocacy in fact causes murders to occur. Re-hashing of your “But
            1.8…..” statements doesn’t act as proof of this fact. Proof requires
            actual data, not your opinion.”

            The fact is that any pro lfier that is aware they are letting born babies die
            or is aware the the Laws is a murderer.

            “An
            additional lie with regard to your “omission” issue is that by a
            woman having a baby here, that it is causing the death of someone else in a
            third world country.”

            No one ever said that. You are lying;. I have said over and over that a choice
            by a pro lifer to force the birth of the fetus of another person is murder. A
            choice to give birth produces a life.

            .”.that’s the one of the only thing that you could use the poverty.org stats for otherwise, really. That,
            on it’s face and factually, is also erroneous”

            No you are building another straw man. The poverty site is only a citation of a
            single element proving whom pro lfier murder.

            “Now,
            I can tie your thoughts with this directly to your poverty.org
            statements, and why those are concretely false.”

            You are making up stuff to use a s a straw man, nothing more.

            “Directly,
            a 23 year old man in Africa is starving right this minute. There’s no omission,
            by anyone here, to cause this.”

            No one said you caused anything. I said you choose not to help.

            “ If we can safely reason that he was starving yesterday, and the day
            before..then a woman who gets pregnant today isn’t exacerbating the problem.”

            No one said a pregnant woman is exacerbating the problem. The woman has nothing
            to do with the issue. If she chooses to give birth, then she has done the world
            a favor. If you choose to force her to give birth then you have not chosen to
            help a born person. Your choice is to force her to give birth to a fetus she
            does not want and that may be dead or not human.

            “ She didn’t create that problem. That issue already existed for him prior to
            the event.”

            There is nothing the woman has done, it is the pro life movement that had the
            choice of saving the baby or a born person. And the born person does not have
            to be from another country. The born person could be a baby dying in the crib
            on the pro lifers own street.

            “ There is no cause and effect by way of someone having a child, where they are
            causing the death of another by lack of resource.”

            Resources have nothing to do with your choice. It is your choice to let a born
            baby die that leads to its death.

            “ The person in our example there was already in danger of starvation by
            omission of food…not by omission where a child that is in it’s first stages
            of conception has used up. Not by omission where it was some evil pro-lifer,
            twirling their mustache and cackling while pulling the strings of life and
            death.”

            The person will die because you chose not to save them. You could have chosen
            to save the person, but instead you chose to attempt to force a dead fetus or
            non human fetus to live.

            “In
            effect, the only omission that goes on is by other living people, by their
            choices. Not in respect to whether you create a life or not, but by other
            external factors”

            One of those factors lies in the fact that pro lifers do not choose to save a
            dying baby that is in their next door neighbor’s arms. You let born babies die
            to save fetuses. That is insane.

            “. Addressing poverty or death in 3rd world countries has nothing to do with
            pro-life policies here at home.”

            Of course it does. If you save a child it is important.

            “ Even if you tried to create the link between poverty and birth here at home,
            that is simply attaching a set of changeable, temporary circumstances to the
            issue of life and death.”

            You are trying to make a straw man argument based upon a lie that would imply
            that only children in other countries die when you choose to ignore their
            needs. Your neighbor’s that have no insurance could have insurance if you
            choose to help them get it to save their baby. Don’t expect to get away with
            lies and strawman arguments. It will not happen.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I think I have answered all your questions. If you want to share more just ask. I will be posing my reply on my own page. Everyone needs to see what you have written.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I answered your questions earlier. here is a copy/paste:
            So let’s start again.
            Please try to keep up, and use less than 2 pages. Seeing the same sentence 15
            times in a post doesn’t really justify your position, it just makes it dull. I
            asked you, the very first time, to define how it is that being pro life means
            you kill babies (and all of the accompanying garbled mess you came up with),
            and yet you couldn’t articulate how that worked in any way, shape or form. You
            didn’t.”

            I explained it to you in great detail. Most people have been able to understand
            what I have written and either make cogent arguments or accept what I say.

            Get someone to help you with this.

            Pro Lifers must kill born babies to save fetuses.

            There are 7 billion people on Earth, all are dying. In fact they are dying at
            the rate of 1.8 each second. There are more people dying than you can save. So
            you must choose whom to save. You may choose to save a fetus or you may choose
            to save a baby. It is impossible to save both, because if you attempt to save a
            fetus and spend 1 second saving a fetus, 1.8 born babies will die.

            I don’t know if I can make it more simple than that. If you still don’t
            understand and you cannot understand when your friends attempt to explain it to
            you, then just ask and I will try again.

            “I likewise tried to
            get you to explain how killing a baby meant saving a fetus, and vice versa. You
            didn’t do that either. How do you expect an answer to questions you pose, when
            you neither can answer mine, nor even frame yours in a readable context?”

            I never said that killing a baby saves a fetus. That is a continuing problem
            for you. You have admitted here that you don’t read what I write. That may be
            the reason you fail to understand. I have explained the difference before, but lets
            do it again. I said tthat you have a choice of whom to save. I did not say that
            killing a fetus saves a baby. Do you understand the difference here. In one
            situation the act of killing saves a life. In the other situation the saving of
            a life saves a life. The two are different. For example if there are only two
            living masses, a baby and a fetus and I tell you that killing a fetus will save
            a baby, that would be wrong. But if there are 7 billion people dying and you
            can save one or let it die, then that is true. The fact that you let born
            people die is what I point out. I ask you to save the born babies, I don’t ask
            you to kill a fetus.

            “I can see at the
            bottom, that you’re asking me to defend myself…but you’re doing so after
            erroneously attributing things to me, you can’t actually answer my questions
            directly and demand that I answer your insanely phrased nonsense, and then here
            say “Until you can answer my question, you are proved to be a murderer of
            born babies”.”

            I have asked you to save born babies, that is not too hard to understand. And
            you have failed to do that. If you say you can, then prove it by saving all the
            born life and then we can talk about saving fetuses.

            “What does murdering
            babies, murdering fetus’, or any of the psuedo-scientific laws you’ve made up
            in your basement lab have anything to do with “Saving 7 Billion
            people”.”

            It is based upon your statement that everyone dies. You said that, right?

            “When you can answer
            the very first things we started off with, and not spin it into some asinine
            diatribe that sounds spiffy and means nothing….we can actually talk. But
            you’re not interested in a rational discussion. Your interested in spin and
            rhetoric, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. If you want questions answered,
            maybe firing back questions that make no sense *as* supposed answers isn’t
            working for you. Try actually participating in a discussion, rather than
            purposely being obtuse.”

            I have simply asked you to save born babies and not kill them. You refuse and
            are making excuses. If you will help me save the babies then we can move
            forward and I will help you save the fetuses.

            “Of course, you’ll
            spin this into me either agreeing with you, which I’ve never done…or you’ll
            just bounce it back. Either way, GL with that.”

            You have a choice, I hope you will use that choice wisely and save babies and
            not kill them. Will you do that?

            “BTW…I still can’t
            find a single thing this Crawford guy invented, other than terms for the laws
            of nature that were already in place.”

            Look them up. Or you can send me a check. I suggest if you are going to look
            them up that you use my name and search the U.S. Patent office.

            ““I’ll give you a free
            lesson though, since you’ve asked, in why those “laws” you cite are
            bogus. From the site you keep pimping:”The Law of Conception: Most
            conceptions end in abortion.”Up front..you connect this law to it’s accompanying
            “theory”….a theory with no merit, no data, no science to support
            it, and nothing more than conjecture on the part of someone who isn’t a
            scientist, has no accreditation in any subject listed, and is just all nonsense
            without proof.”

            The data is all over the internet. Others have found it, look where they look.

            “There is no data
            which supports this “law”. The birth and death rates, as I cited
            previously, refute that statement outright. There wouldn’t be skyrocketing
            birth rates as there are, and the infant mortality rate would be through the
            roof, if that were the case.”

            If you read the citations on the site you will find the data.

            “Secondarily, this
            fake “law” you put so much stock in states that:”

            That is simply an ad hominem attack and is of no value. If you have something
            to say, say it.

            “”The Theory of
            Conception states: Abortion is a natural and expected consequence of sex.”

            On it’s face, that’s
            factually false. If there is any expectation with unprotected sex, it’s that
            pregnancy occurs, not abortion. As mentioned before, since there’s no
            skyrocketing infant mortality rate in the 60% range or more, I’m not even sure
            you could repeat that line above there to someone and keep a straight face.
            It’s nonsensical and untrue by virtue of it’s own statement. “

            If you have a question, then put it in the form of a question. Until then you
            might want to read the citations that are with the page. You will find that
            most conceptions die, they do not become pregnancies.

            “How long do you wish
            to continue defending a position that, even by the way the sentence is
            structured, is patently false? Is it just that important to you, to bash your
            head against a verbal brick wall, in the hope that eventually someone,
            somewhere will just give up and agree?”

            You have already admitted you don’t read what I have posted so your opinion of
            what is or is not a law or theory is invalid. If you wish to discuss the laws,
            then read the citations. Then we can talk. Right now you are wasting time.

            I suggest you ask a question? And read the citation.

            “I don’t really like
            picking on the weak…but you keep coming back for more. I’m torn between just
            not responding, since you’re going to just say the same things again over and
            over anyway…or reply just because I have most of the day off and I just cant
            help but point out where you’re abjectly wrong.”

            You have not read what I have written and have not read the citations. So until
            you do, your comments are worthless. Lets by all means have a discussion, after
            you have read and understand what is written.

            “So which will it be?
            More masochistic behavior for you, or just a quiet acceptance that no one is
            buying into the theories of a crackpot that no one has ever heard of to date?”

            You have completely wasted my time as well as the time of anyone reading. I
            suggest that before you continue to converse, you read my site and the
            citations there. Until then you will continue to ask questions that make no
            sense.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I answered your earlier, here is the copy/paste. I will paste it again if you ask the same questions again.

            You said:
            “So let’s start again.
            Please try to keep up, and use less than 2 pages. Seeing the same sentence 15
            times in a post doesn’t really justify your position, it just makes it dull. I
            asked you, the very first time, to define how it is that being pro life means
            you kill babies (and all of the accompanying garbled mess you came up with),
            and yet you couldn’t articulate how that worked in any way, shape or form. You
            didn’t.”

            I explained it to you in great detail. Most people have been able to understand
            what I have written and either make cogent arguments or accept what I say.

            Get someone to help you with this.

            Pro Lifers must kill born babies to save fetuses.

            There are 7 billion people on Earth, all are dying. In fact they are dying at
            the rate of 1.8 each second. There are more people dying than you can save. So
            you must choose whom to save. You may choose to save a fetus or you may choose
            to save a baby. It is impossible to save both, because if you attempt to save a
            fetus and spend 1 second saving a fetus, 1.8 born babies will die.

            I don’t know if I can make it more simple than that. If you still don’t
            understand and you cannot understand when your friends attempt to explain it to
            you, then just ask and I will try again.

            “I likewise tried to
            get you to explain how killing a baby meant saving a fetus, and vice versa. You
            didn’t do that either. How do you expect an answer to questions you pose, when
            you neither can answer mine, nor even frame yours in a readable context?”

            I never said that killing a baby saves a fetus. That is a continuing problem
            for you. You have admitted here that you don’t read what I write. That may be
            the reason you fail to understand. I have explained the difference before, but lets
            do it again. I said tthat you have a choice of whom to save. I did not say that
            killing a fetus saves a baby. Do you understand the difference here. In one
            situation the act of killing saves a life. In the other situation the saving of
            a life saves a life. The two are different. For example if there are only two
            living masses, a baby and a fetus and I tell you that killing a fetus will save
            a baby, that would be wrong. But if there are 7 billion people dying and you
            can save one or let it die, then that is true. The fact that you let born
            people die is what I point out. I ask you to save the born babies, I don’t ask
            you to kill a fetus.

            “I can see at the
            bottom, that you’re asking me to defend myself…but you’re doing so after
            erroneously attributing things to me, you can’t actually answer my questions
            directly and demand that I answer your insanely phrased nonsense, and then here
            say “Until you can answer my question, you are proved to be a murderer of
            born babies”.”

            I have asked you to save born babies, that is not too hard to understand. And
            you have failed to do that. If you say you can, then prove it by saving all the
            born life and then we can talk about saving fetuses.

            “What does murdering
            babies, murdering fetus’, or any of the psuedo-scientific laws you’ve made up
            in your basement lab have anything to do with “Saving 7 Billion
            people”.”

            It is based upon your statement that everyone dies. You said that, right?

            “When you can answer
            the very first things we started off with, and not spin it into some asinine
            diatribe that sounds spiffy and means nothing….we can actually talk. But
            you’re not interested in a rational discussion. Your interested in spin and
            rhetoric, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. If you want questions answered,
            maybe firing back questions that make no sense *as* supposed answers isn’t
            working for you. Try actually participating in a discussion, rather than
            purposely being obtuse.”

            I have simply asked you to save born babies and not kill them. You refuse and
            are making excuses. If you will help me save the babies then we can move
            forward and I will help you save the fetuses.

            “Of course, you’ll
            spin this into me either agreeing with you, which I’ve never done…or you’ll
            just bounce it back. Either way, GL with that.”

            You have a choice, I hope you will use that choice wisely and save babies and
            not kill them. Will you do that?

            “BTW…I still can’t
            find a single thing this Crawford guy invented, other than terms for the laws
            of nature that were already in place.”

            Look them up. Or you can send me a check. I suggest if you are going to look
            them up that you use my name and search the U.S. Patent office.

            ““I’ll give you a free
            lesson though, since you’ve asked, in why those “laws” you cite are
            bogus. From the site you keep pimping:”The Law of Conception: Most
            conceptions end in abortion.”Up front..you connect this law to it’s accompanying
            “theory”….a theory with no merit, no data, no science to support
            it, and nothing more than conjecture on the part of someone who isn’t a
            scientist, has no accreditation in any subject listed, and is just all nonsense
            without proof.”

            The data is all over the internet. Others have found it, look where they look.

            “There is no data
            which supports this “law”. The birth and death rates, as I cited
            previously, refute that statement outright. There wouldn’t be skyrocketing
            birth rates as there are, and the infant mortality rate would be through the
            roof, if that were the case.”

            If you read the citations on the site you will find the data.

            “Secondarily, this
            fake “law” you put so much stock in states that:”

            That is simply an ad hominem attack and is of no value. If you have something
            to say, say it.

            “”The Theory of
            Conception states: Abortion is a natural and expected consequence of sex.”

            On it’s face, that’s
            factually false. If there is any expectation with unprotected sex, it’s that
            pregnancy occurs, not abortion. As mentioned before, since there’s no
            skyrocketing infant mortality rate in the 60% range or more, I’m not even sure
            you could repeat that line above there to someone and keep a straight face.
            It’s nonsensical and untrue by virtue of it’s own statement. “

            If you have a question, then put it in the form of a question. Until then you
            might want to read the citations that are with the page. You will find that
            most conceptions die, they do not become pregnancies.

            “How long do you wish
            to continue defending a position that, even by the way the sentence is
            structured, is patently false? Is it just that important to you, to bash your
            head against a verbal brick wall, in the hope that eventually someone,
            somewhere will just give up and agree?”

            You have already admitted you don’t read what I have posted so your opinion of
            what is or is not a law or theory is invalid. If you wish to discuss the laws,
            then read the citations. Then we can talk. Right now you are wasting time.

            I suggest you ask a question? And read the citation.

            “I don’t really like
            picking on the weak…but you keep coming back for more. I’m torn between just
            not responding, since you’re going to just say the same things again over and
            over anyway…or reply just because I have most of the day off and I just cant
            help but point out where you’re abjectly wrong.”

            You have not read what I have written and have not read the citations. So until
            you do, your comments are worthless. Lets by all means have a discussion, after
            you have read and understand what is written.

            “So which will it be?
            More masochistic behavior for you, or just a quiet acceptance that no one is
            buying into the theories of a crackpot that no one has ever heard of to date?”

            You have completely wasted my time as well as the time of anyone reading. I
            suggest that before you continue to converse, you read my site and the
            citations there. Until then you will continue to ask questions that make no
            sense.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            All your questions were answered here: You said:
            So let’s start again.
            Please try to keep up, and use less than 2 pages. Seeing the same sentence 15
            times in a post doesn’t really justify your position, it just makes it dull. I
            asked you, the very first time, to define how it is that being pro life means
            you kill babies (and all of the accompanying garbled mess you came up with),
            and yet you couldn’t articulate how that worked in any way, shape or form. You
            didn’t.”

            I explained it to you in great detail. Most people have been able to understand
            what I have written and either make cogent arguments or accept what I say.

            Get someone to help you with this.

            Pro Lifers must kill born babies to save fetuses.

            There are 7 billion people on Earth, all are dying. In fact they are dying at
            the rate of 1.8 each second. There are more people dying than you can save. So
            you must choose whom to save. You may choose to save a fetus or you may choose
            to save a baby. It is impossible to save both, because if you attempt to save a
            fetus and spend 1 second saving a fetus, 1.8 born babies will die.

            I don’t know if I can make it more simple than that. If you still don’t
            understand and you cannot understand when your friends attempt to explain it to
            you, then just ask and I will try again.

            “I likewise tried to
            get you to explain how killing a baby meant saving a fetus, and vice versa. You
            didn’t do that either. How do you expect an answer to questions you pose, when
            you neither can answer mine, nor even frame yours in a readable context?”

            I never said that killing a baby saves a fetus. That is a continuing problem
            for you. You have admitted here that you don’t read what I write. That may be
            the reason you fail to understand. I have explained the difference before, but lets
            do it again. I said tthat you have a choice of whom to save. I did not say that
            killing a fetus saves a baby. Do you understand the difference here. In one
            situation the act of killing saves a life. In the other situation the saving of
            a life saves a life. The two are different. For example if there are only two
            living masses, a baby and a fetus and I tell you that killing a fetus will save
            a baby, that would be wrong. But if there are 7 billion people dying and you
            can save one or let it die, then that is true. The fact that you let born
            people die is what I point out. I ask you to save the born babies, I don’t ask
            you to kill a fetus.

            “I can see at the
            bottom, that you’re asking me to defend myself…but you’re doing so after
            erroneously attributing things to me, you can’t actually answer my questions
            directly and demand that I answer your insanely phrased nonsense, and then here
            say “Until you can answer my question, you are proved to be a murderer of
            born babies”.”

            I have asked you to save born babies, that is not too hard to understand. And
            you have failed to do that. If you say you can, then prove it by saving all the
            born life and then we can talk about saving fetuses.

            “What does murdering
            babies, murdering fetus’, or any of the psuedo-scientific laws you’ve made up
            in your basement lab have anything to do with “Saving 7 Billion
            people”.”

            It is based upon your statement that everyone dies. You said that, right?

            “When you can answer
            the very first things we started off with, and not spin it into some asinine
            diatribe that sounds spiffy and means nothing….we can actually talk. But
            you’re not interested in a rational discussion. Your interested in spin and
            rhetoric, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. If you want questions answered,
            maybe firing back questions that make no sense *as* supposed answers isn’t
            working for you. Try actually participating in a discussion, rather than
            purposely being obtuse.”

            I have simply asked you to save born babies and not kill them. You refuse and
            are making excuses. If you will help me save the babies then we can move
            forward and I will help you save the fetuses.

            “Of course, you’ll
            spin this into me either agreeing with you, which I’ve never done…or you’ll
            just bounce it back. Either way, GL with that.”

            You have a choice, I hope you will use that choice wisely and save babies and
            not kill them. Will you do that?

            “BTW…I still can’t
            find a single thing this Crawford guy invented, other than terms for the laws
            of nature that were already in place.”

            Look them up. Or you can send me a check. I suggest if you are going to look
            them up that you use my name and search the U.S. Patent office.

            ““I’ll give you a free
            lesson though, since you’ve asked, in why those “laws” you cite are
            bogus. From the site you keep pimping:”The Law of Conception: Most
            conceptions end in abortion.”Up front..you connect this law to it’s accompanying
            “theory”….a theory with no merit, no data, no science to support
            it, and nothing more than conjecture on the part of someone who isn’t a
            scientist, has no accreditation in any subject listed, and is just all nonsense
            without proof.”

            The data is all over the internet. Others have found it, look where they look.

            “There is no data
            which supports this “law”. The birth and death rates, as I cited
            previously, refute that statement outright. There wouldn’t be skyrocketing
            birth rates as there are, and the infant mortality rate would be through the
            roof, if that were the case.”

            If you read the citations on the site you will find the data.

            “Secondarily, this
            fake “law” you put so much stock in states that:”

            That is simply an ad hominem attack and is of no value. If you have something
            to say, say it.

            “”The Theory of
            Conception states: Abortion is a natural and expected consequence of sex.”

            On it’s face, that’s
            factually false. If there is any expectation with unprotected sex, it’s that
            pregnancy occurs, not abortion. As mentioned before, since there’s no
            skyrocketing infant mortality rate in the 60% range or more, I’m not even sure
            you could repeat that line above there to someone and keep a straight face.
            It’s nonsensical and untrue by virtue of it’s own statement. “

            If you have a question, then put it in the form of a question. Until then you
            might want to read the citations that are with the page. You will find that
            most conceptions die, they do not become pregnancies.

            “How long do you wish
            to continue defending a position that, even by the way the sentence is
            structured, is patently false? Is it just that important to you, to bash your
            head against a verbal brick wall, in the hope that eventually someone,
            somewhere will just give up and agree?”

            You have already admitted you don’t read what I have posted so your opinion of
            what is or is not a law or theory is invalid. If you wish to discuss the laws,
            then read the citations. Then we can talk. Right now you are wasting time.

            I suggest you ask a question? And read the citation.

            “I don’t really like
            picking on the weak…but you keep coming back for more. I’m torn between just
            not responding, since you’re going to just say the same things again over and
            over anyway…or reply just because I have most of the day off and I just cant
            help but point out where you’re abjectly wrong.”

            You have not read what I have written and have not read the citations. So until
            you do, your comments are worthless. Lets by all means have a discussion, after
            you have read and understand what is written.

            “So which will it be?
            More masochistic behavior for you, or just a quiet acceptance that no one is
            buying into the theories of a crackpot that no one has ever heard of to date?”

            You have completely wasted my time as well as the time of anyone reading. I
            suggest that before you continue to converse, you read my site and the
            citations there. Until then you will continue to ask questions that make no
            sense.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            So let’s start again.
            Please try to keep up, and use less than 2 pages. Seeing the same sentence 15
            times in a post doesn’t really justify your position, it just makes it dull. I
            asked you, the very first time, to define how it is that being pro life means
            you kill babies (and all of the accompanying garbled mess you came up with),
            and yet you couldn’t articulate how that worked in any way, shape or form. You
            didn’t.”

            I explained it to you in great detail. Most people have been able to understand
            what I have written and either make cogent arguments or accept what I say.

            Get someone to help you with this.

            Pro Lifers must kill born babies to save fetuses.

            There are 7 billion people on Earth, all are dying. In fact they are dying at
            the rate of 1.8 each second. There are more people dying than you can save. So
            you must choose whom to save. You may choose to save a fetus or you may choose
            to save a baby. It is impossible to save both, because if you attempt to save a
            fetus and spend 1 second saving a fetus, 1.8 born babies will die.

            I don’t know if I can make it more simple than that. If you still don’t
            understand and you cannot understand when your friends attempt to explain it to
            you, then just ask and I will try again.

            “I likewise tried to
            get you to explain how killing a baby meant saving a fetus, and vice versa. You
            didn’t do that either. How do you expect an answer to questions you pose, when
            you neither can answer mine, nor even frame yours in a readable context?”

            I never said that killing a baby saves a fetus. That is a continuing problem
            for you. You have admitted here that you don’t read what I write. That may be
            the reason you fail to understand. I have explained the difference before, but lets
            do it again. I said tthat you have a choice of whom to save. I did not say that
            killing a fetus saves a baby. Do you understand the difference here. In one
            situation the act of killing saves a life. In the other situation the saving of
            a life saves a life. The two are different. For example if there are only two
            living masses, a baby and a fetus and I tell you that killing a fetus will save
            a baby, that would be wrong. But if there are 7 billion people dying and you
            can save one or let it die, then that is true. The fact that you let born
            people die is what I point out. I ask you to save the born babies, I don’t ask
            you to kill a fetus.

            “I can see at the
            bottom, that you’re asking me to defend myself…but you’re doing so after
            erroneously attributing things to me, you can’t actually answer my questions
            directly and demand that I answer your insanely phrased nonsense, and then here
            say “Until you can answer my question, you are proved to be a murderer of
            born babies”.”

            I have asked you to save born babies, that is not too hard to understand. And
            you have failed to do that. If you say you can, then prove it by saving all the
            born life and then we can talk about saving fetuses.

            “What does murdering
            babies, murdering fetus’, or any of the psuedo-scientific laws you’ve made up
            in your basement lab have anything to do with “Saving 7 Billion
            people”.”

            It is based upon your statement that everyone dies. You said that, right?

            “When you can answer
            the very first things we started off with, and not spin it into some asinine
            diatribe that sounds spiffy and means nothing….we can actually talk. But
            you’re not interested in a rational discussion. Your interested in spin and
            rhetoric, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. If you want questions answered,
            maybe firing back questions that make no sense *as* supposed answers isn’t
            working for you. Try actually participating in a discussion, rather than
            purposely being obtuse.”

            I have simply asked you to save born babies and not kill them. You refuse and
            are making excuses. If you will help me save the babies then we can move
            forward and I will help you save the fetuses.

            “Of course, you’ll
            spin this into me either agreeing with you, which I’ve never done…or you’ll
            just bounce it back. Either way, GL with that.”

            You have a choice, I hope you will use that choice wisely and save babies and
            not kill them. Will you do that?

            “BTW…I still can’t
            find a single thing this Crawford guy invented, other than terms for the laws
            of nature that were already in place.”

            Look them up. Or you can send me a check. I suggest if you are going to look
            them up that you use my name and search the U.S. Patent office.

            ““I’ll give you a free
            lesson though, since you’ve asked, in why those “laws” you cite are
            bogus. From the site you keep pimping:”The Law of Conception: Most
            conceptions end in abortion.”Up front..you connect this law to it’s accompanying
            “theory”….a theory with no merit, no data, no science to support
            it, and nothing more than conjecture on the part of someone who isn’t a
            scientist, has no accreditation in any subject listed, and is just all nonsense
            without proof.”

            The data is all over the internet. Others have found it, look where they look.

            “There is no data
            which supports this “law”. The birth and death rates, as I cited
            previously, refute that statement outright. There wouldn’t be skyrocketing
            birth rates as there are, and the infant mortality rate would be through the
            roof, if that were the case.”

            If you read the citations on the site you will find the data.

            “Secondarily, this
            fake “law” you put so much stock in states that:”

            That is simply an ad hominem attack and is of no value. If you have something
            to say, say it.

            “”The Theory of
            Conception states: Abortion is a natural and expected consequence of sex.”

            On it’s face, that’s
            factually false. If there is any expectation with unprotected sex, it’s that
            pregnancy occurs, not abortion. As mentioned before, since there’s no
            skyrocketing infant mortality rate in the 60% range or more, I’m not even sure
            you could repeat that line above there to someone and keep a straight face.
            It’s nonsensical and untrue by virtue of it’s own statement. “

            If you have a question, then put it in the form of a question. Until then you
            might want to read the citations that are with the page. You will find that
            most conceptions die, they do not become pregnancies.

            “How long do you wish
            to continue defending a position that, even by the way the sentence is
            structured, is patently false? Is it just that important to you, to bash your
            head against a verbal brick wall, in the hope that eventually someone,
            somewhere will just give up and agree?”

            You have already admitted you don’t read what I have posted so your opinion of
            what is or is not a law or theory is invalid. If you wish to discuss the laws,
            then read the citations. Then we can talk. Right now you are wasting time.

            I suggest you ask a question? And read the citation.

            “I don’t really like
            picking on the weak…but you keep coming back for more. I’m torn between just
            not responding, since you’re going to just say the same things again over and
            over anyway…or reply just because I have most of the day off and I just cant
            help but point out where you’re abjectly wrong.”

            You have not read what I have written and have not read the citations. So until
            you do, your comments are worthless. Lets by all means have a discussion, after
            you have read and understand what is written.

            “So which will it be?
            More masochistic behavior for you, or just a quiet acceptance that no one is
            buying into the theories of a crackpot that no one has ever heard of to date?”

            You have completely wasted my time as well as the time of anyone reading. I
            suggest that before you continue to converse, you read my site and the
            citations there. Until then you will continue to ask questions that make no
            sense.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            So let’s start again.
            Please try to keep up, and use less than 2 pages. Seeing the same sentence 15
            times in a post doesn’t really justify your position, it just makes it dull. I
            asked you, the very first time, to define how it is that being pro life means
            you kill babies (and all of the accompanying garbled mess you came up with),
            and yet you couldn’t articulate how that worked in any way, shape or form. You
            didn’t.”

            I explained it to you in great detail. Most people have been able to understand
            what I have written and either make cogent arguments or accept what I say.

            Get someone to help you with this.

            Pro Lifers must kill born babies to save fetuses.

            There are 7 billion people on Earth, all are dying. In fact they are dying at
            the rate of 1.8 each second. There are more people dying than you can save. So
            you must choose whom to save. You may choose to save a fetus or you may choose
            to save a baby. It is impossible to save both, because if you attempt to save a
            fetus and spend 1 second saving a fetus, 1.8 born babies will die.

            I don’t know if I can make it more simple than that. If you still don’t
            understand and you cannot understand when your friends attempt to explain it to
            you, then just ask and I will try again.

            “I likewise tried to
            get you to explain how killing a baby meant saving a fetus, and vice versa. You
            didn’t do that either. How do you expect an answer to questions you pose, when
            you neither can answer mine, nor even frame yours in a readable context?”

            I never said that killing a baby saves a fetus. That is a continuing problem
            for you. You have admitted here that you don’t read what I write. That may be
            the reason you fail to understand. I have explained the difference before, but lets
            do it again. I said tthat you have a choice of whom to save. I did not say that
            killing a fetus saves a baby. Do you understand the difference here. In one
            situation the act of killing saves a life. In the other situation the saving of
            a life saves a life. The two are different. For example if there are only two
            living masses, a baby and a fetus and I tell you that killing a fetus will save
            a baby, that would be wrong. But if there are 7 billion people dying and you
            can save one or let it die, then that is true. The fact that you let born
            people die is what I point out. I ask you to save the born babies, I don’t ask
            you to kill a fetus.

            “I can see at the
            bottom, that you’re asking me to defend myself…but you’re doing so after
            erroneously attributing things to me, you can’t actually answer my questions
            directly and demand that I answer your insanely phrased nonsense, and then here
            say “Until you can answer my question, you are proved to be a murderer of
            born babies”.”

            I have asked you to save born babies, that is not too hard to understand. And
            you have failed to do that. If you say you can, then prove it by saving all the
            born life and then we can talk about saving fetuses.

            “What does murdering
            babies, murdering fetus’, or any of the psuedo-scientific laws you’ve made up
            in your basement lab have anything to do with “Saving 7 Billion
            people”.”

            It is based upon your statement that everyone dies. You said that, right?

            “When you can answer
            the very first things we started off with, and not spin it into some asinine
            diatribe that sounds spiffy and means nothing….we can actually talk. But
            you’re not interested in a rational discussion. Your interested in spin and
            rhetoric, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. If you want questions answered,
            maybe firing back questions that make no sense *as* supposed answers isn’t
            working for you. Try actually participating in a discussion, rather than
            purposely being obtuse.”

            I have simply asked you to save born babies and not kill them. You refuse and
            are making excuses. If you will help me save the babies then we can move
            forward and I will help you save the fetuses.

            “Of course, you’ll
            spin this into me either agreeing with you, which I’ve never done…or you’ll
            just bounce it back. Either way, GL with that.”

            You have a choice, I hope you will use that choice wisely and save babies and
            not kill them. Will you do that?

            “BTW…I still can’t
            find a single thing this Crawford guy invented, other than terms for the laws
            of nature that were already in place.”

            Look them up. Or you can send me a check. I suggest if you are going to look
            them up that you use my name and search the U.S. Patent office.

            ““I’ll give you a free
            lesson though, since you’ve asked, in why those “laws” you cite are
            bogus. From the site you keep pimping:”The Law of Conception: Most
            conceptions end in abortion.”Up front..you connect this law to it’s accompanying
            “theory”….a theory with no merit, no data, no science to support
            it, and nothing more than conjecture on the part of someone who isn’t a
            scientist, has no accreditation in any subject listed, and is just all nonsense
            without proof.”

            The data is all over the internet. Others have found it, look where they look.

            “There is no data
            which supports this “law”. The birth and death rates, as I cited
            previously, refute that statement outright. There wouldn’t be skyrocketing
            birth rates as there are, and the infant mortality rate would be through the
            roof, if that were the case.”

            If you read the citations on the site you will find the data.

            “Secondarily, this
            fake “law” you put so much stock in states that:”

            That is simply an ad hominem attack and is of no value. If you have something
            to say, say it.

            “”The Theory of
            Conception states: Abortion is a natural and expected consequence of sex.”

            On it’s face, that’s
            factually false. If there is any expectation with unprotected sex, it’s that
            pregnancy occurs, not abortion. As mentioned before, since there’s no
            skyrocketing infant mortality rate in the 60% range or more, I’m not even sure
            you could repeat that line above there to someone and keep a straight face.
            It’s nonsensical and untrue by virtue of it’s own statement. “

            If you have a question, then put it in the form of a question. Until then you
            might want to read the citations that are with the page. You will find that
            most conceptions die, they do not become pregnancies.

            “How long do you wish
            to continue defending a position that, even by the way the sentence is
            structured, is patently false? Is it just that important to you, to bash your
            head against a verbal brick wall, in the hope that eventually someone,
            somewhere will just give up and agree?”

            You have already admitted you don’t read what I have posted so your opinion of
            what is or is not a law or theory is invalid. If you wish to discuss the laws,
            then read the citations. Then we can talk. Right now you are wasting time.

            I suggest you ask a question? And read the citation.

            “I don’t really like
            picking on the weak…but you keep coming back for more. I’m torn between just
            not responding, since you’re going to just say the same things again over and
            over anyway…or reply just because I have most of the day off and I just cant
            help but point out where you’re abjectly wrong.”

            You have not read what I have written and have not read the citations. So until
            you do, your comments are worthless. Lets by all means have a discussion, after
            you have read and understand what is written.

            “So which will it be?
            More masochistic behavior for you, or just a quiet acceptance that no one is
            buying into the theories of a crackpot that no one has ever heard of to date?”

            You have completely wasted my time as well as the time of anyone reading. I
            suggest that before you continue to converse, you read my site and the
            citations there. Until then you will continue to ask questions that make no
            sense.

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          You are trying to save both right now and have failed. there are still born people dying. Each time you spend one second saving a fetus, 1.8 born people die. Tell me how you saved any fetus without letting a born baby die? I have asked you sever times yet you never answer.

      • ChristinaDunigan

        Russell, if you had a choice, would you save an innocent preschooler or let her die and save a newborn instead. Which would you save?

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          It I could only save one, I would use triage to determine which one to save. That is the same thing pro lifers should do. You should use triage to save the most life possible. Instead you choose to save a fetus instead of the most life possible.

  • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

    I wasn’t aware that being pro-life was hateful.

    Is dying now in or something?

    • Kelgair

      Yes, the pro-abortionist amount to a death cult.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        Pro lifers murder born babies to save fetuses.

        • Kelgair

          Life is not a zero sum game. Do try again though, someday you might make sense.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I agree that life is not a zero sum game. If you kill a born baby then it dies so the sum is not zero, the sum is minus 1. If you save a born baby, then the sum is plus 1. Do you understand that?

          • Kelgair

            Having an abortion does not save anything that’s already born, it’s a net loss and having a baby is a net gain. You seem to think that because someone doesn’t have an abortion it kills an already living baby. It doesn’t, and whatever warped logic you used to arrive at that assumption is seriously flawed. Hence why I informed you that life is not a zero sum game and that your original premise is wrong.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            No one said that having an abortion saves anything. You probably read a strawman argument and believed it to represent the issue I am discussing.
            There are a lot of dishonest pro lifers out there that will concoct any type of strawman that allows them to continue to murder innocent babies.
            The fact is that born babies, children and adults are dying at a rate faster than is possible to save. Therefore you have a choice of whom to save, a fetus or a baby. If you do not save the baby, it will die. For example if you spend 1 second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born babies die. If you save a baby, then a fetus dies. One or the other or both will die. If you save the fetus, the baby will die and if you save the baby, the fetus will die. The reason you should save the baby is because it is born and triage can determine the best life to save. Also the fetus has only a 30 percent chance of life as a zygote, so attempting to save it will fail 70 percent of the time.

          • Kelgair

            Russel Crawford – “No one said that having an abortion saves anything.” – an hour ago
            Russell Crawford – “Pro lifers murder born babies to save fetuses.” – 15 hours ago

            A fine display of cognitive dissonance Russell! I think I’m done addressing your delusion though. I’ll just leave by pointing out that abortionist don’t do neo-natal care so there is no “choice” on who to save, among the many fallacies in the Montezuma’s Revenge of words that was your last post.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            The cognitive problems are on your side. You took what I say out of context and built a strawman argument. The context in which life is killed by pro lifers is found in their choice to let born babies die in an effort to save fetuses.
            Lets look at the words you quoted: “No one said that having an abortion saves anything” ; “Pro lifers murder born babies to save fetuses.” The second in no way says that abortion of a fetus saves life. It is the choice to let babies die that makes pro lifers murderers.

          • Kelgair

            “It is the choice to let babies die that makes pro lifers murderers.” See, that? That right there is your delusion. That you also don’t even understand the actual logic in the argument you’re trying to put forth is telling. In any case, I said I was done so enjoy your day and maybe have your meds checked.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            The fact is that you don’t deny that you murder born babies. I have asked you to explain how you will save all the born people on Earth as you imply you can. You can’t and I ask you again how you will save born babies if you don’t choose to save them.
            Your ad homenim attacks are a waste of time. If you can’t prove your points, then blaming me for your failures won’t work.
            Now I ask that you answer my question. You have a choice, you may save a born baby or you may let it die instead and attempt to save a fetus. Your choice is to let the baby die and claim you can save both. Explain how you will save 1.8 babies each second.

          • Kelgair

            Are you really that shallow? The fact is that you don’t deny that you murder born babies. Fine, I deny that I murder born babies, born babies get medical care whether you like it or not, since we haven’t normalized infanticide yet despite your preference to do so. Now, do you deny that you support the murder of healthy babies that would; unless some evil psycho invades a womb with his tools of death that kills a baby who would be born a human being? Or do you consider certain human beings to be “property”. Cause that line of Democrat thinking was really popular in the past. So I won’t blame you if you still think certain Humans are property. I’ll just despise you, with a genuine level of hate. Since you seem to hate life itself.

            I will quite happily declare that your question and choice is meaningless, it makes no sense in any logical manner because that idiot Malthus was disproven decades ago. Every population Armageddon was met with an increase in population and numerous ways to make humans live better and more efficiently. Oh, you didn’t think I noticed you were an advocate of the death cult of “limits in population growth”? This planet can accommodate trillions of people, you’re just a sicko who who promotes death in place of actually saving life.

            Oh, and I might save 1.8 babies by not killing the potential doctors in-utero who could save said babies. You F@#($& idiot.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “Are
            you really that shallow? The fact is
            that you don’t deny that you murder born babies. Fine, I deny that I murder born babies,”

            In order to deny murdering babies it requires you to answer the question I
            asked. I asked you if you choose to let born babies die. You admit that you do in
            fact let born babies die when you admit you are pro life. Pro lifers have a
            choice, they may save born babies or they may kill them and save a fetus
            instead. You admit you let the born babies die because you admit you are a pro
            lifer.

            “born babies get medical care whether
            you like it or not, since we haven’t normalized infanticide yet despite your
            preference to do so.”

            You are the one practicing infanticide. You have a choice to save babies or to
            kill them and save a fetus instead. Now if you can prove that you can save 1.8
            born babies every second, then you can prove you can save both. But you can’t
            so you admit you are killing babies.

            “ Now, do you deny that you support the murder of healthy babies that would;
            unless some evil psycho invades a womb with his tools of death that kills a
            baby who would be born a human being?”

            I admit that I let fetuses die in order to save innocent babies. You murder
            innocent babies to save fetuses. That is what our conversation is about.

            “Or do you consider certain human beings
            to be “property”.”

            The scientific fact is that babies are born and alive. I save them. The scientific
            fact is that you cannot prove any fetus will live to birth, even though many will.
            So you murder innocent babies in an effort to force the birth of a fetus you
            cannot prove is alive or human.

            “Cause that line of Democrat thinking
            was really popular in the past. So I won’t blame you if you still think certain
            Humans are property. I’ll just despise you, with a genuine level of hate. Since
            you seem to hate life itself.”

            Human life is sacred and should not be murdered by pro lifers trying to save a
            fetus.

            “I
            will quite happily declare that your question and choice is meaningless, it
            makes no sense in any logical manner because that idiot Malthus was disproven
            decades ago.”

            Your choice remains, you can save babies or murder them. The first step is
            stopping your murders is to choose to save innocent babies. Will you stop murdering
            innocent babies and join me is saving the most life possible?

            “ Every population Armageddon was met with an increase in population and
            numerous ways to make humans live better and more efficiently. Oh, you didn’t
            think I noticed you were an advocate of the death cult of “limits in
            population growth”?”

            I am not an advocate of killing life, I am an advocate of saving life. Pro
            lifers let born babies die. Evidently you are the one that is a member of a
            death cult.

            “ This planet can accommodate trillions of people, you’re just a sicko who who
            promotes death in place of actually saving life.”

            Yeah, you are for killing babies and think that killing babies will populate
            the world with trillions of people. Tell me how murdering innocent born babies
            will raise the population to trillions?

            “Oh,
            and I might save 1.8 babies by not killing the potential doctors in-utero who
            could save said babies. You F@#($& idiot”

            You may save 1.8 babies in your lifetime, but you are murdering 1.8 babies each
            second. You understand that killing that many babies will not make you pro life,
            right?

  • lainer51

    I love how these dolts use the term Anti-Choice instead of Pro-Life….. No wonder they are called low information losers, er, I mean voters….

    • MarcusFenix

      You know the drill…if you can simply change the title of your opponent to something that sounds worse, it’s just a way to direct the narrative. Same thing when using terms like racist, homophobe, etc.

      But you’re absolutely correct. :) +1

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        Marcus, Pro lifers kill born babies to save fetuses. Or would you rather that I say pro lifers kill born babies to save unborn babies. Either way, you kill babies.
        My favorite is to say “anti choice pro life murderers kill innocent born babies in an effort to save non human life or life that is dead. “

        • andycanuck

          You might want to get that lithium prescription refilled, Russ. Soon.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Pro lifers like you have a choice, you can save an innocent born baby or you can let it die and save a fetus instead. Which do you choose to save? I suggest that if your choice is to let the born baby die, they you are the one that needs the lithium.

          • MarcusFenix

            Just to finish this one, you’re engaging in whats called the Black/White Fallacy, or the False Dilemma Fallacy. Simply put, you’re putting it forward that it’s an “either-or” scenario, which is not only logically incorrect, but also (as demonstrated by my post above) just raw rhetoric with which you try to trap someone in a discussion.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            in the black white fallacy there must be only two choices and one must be false. If there are only two choices and one if true then there is no fallacy. My claim is that there are move people dying than can be saved. The claim is true, as you admit. Therefore you can only have two choices and one of those choices is true. It is true that you may make a choice between two options and that those options are limited to either saving a born life or an unborn life. It is a fact that if you choose to save the fetus, the born baby dies. Until you prove that is false you are wrong.
            in the False Dilemma Fallacy they dilemma presented must be false. The Dilemma I set up is true. You cannot save a fetus without causing the death of a born baby. Until you prove that point, you are simply wrong.

          • MarcusFenix

            Your own words show you’re incorrect. You also assume I agree with you, which I’ve demonstrated I don’t.

            You make this statement:

            “Pro lifers like you have a choice, you can save an innocent born baby or you can let it die and save a fetus instead.”

            That is an either-or statement. There’s no middle ground about what that statement is, or what it means.

            I think I see the problem here. You’re spouting this notion that “more people are dying that can be saved”. Saved how? From what? Where? Why?

            Your own terminology is getting in the way of any actual points you can make. If “saved” means being saved from eventual death, you’re still wrong. The birth rate outpaces the death rate, by a rather wide margin…a fact, you again, glanced over and can’t refute in any way.

            So now I’ve shown how you’re concretely in a fallacy. Here’s how I break that line of thought. Let’s go here:

            “It is true that you may make a choice between two options and that those
            options are limited to either saving a born life or an unborn life. It
            is a fact that if you choose to save the fetus, the born baby dies.
            Until you prove that is false you are wrong.”

            The fallacy, and your error, is that you’re saying either a baby dies, or a fetus dies. But if both live, what happens? They’re both born, and grow up. Do they die at some point? Of course. Is it when they’re still a baby? I hope not, but the life expectancy of humans isn’t 3 months.

            So you are left with this:

            1. Save the fetus. Normal outcome: Birth
            2. Save the baby: Normal outcome of birth: Life

            3. Kill the fetus: No life, no longevity.

            So there’s at least 3 choices. You’re fallacy lies in assuming that because a fetus lives, a baby dies. One can still have a fetus live, and a baby live, with the outcome being positive.

            Abortion has only 1 means and 1 end. It stops the process of life from growing.

            Allowing a fetus to grow, or a baby to be born, presents 2 more options beyond that, and generally with positive results, i.e it lives and grows up.

            Simple example, simple reasoning.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            §
            “Your own words show
            you’re incorrect. You also assume I agree with you, which I’ve demonstrated I
            don’t.”

            You agree that everyone dies, right? If you agree to that then you agree with
            the Law of Charity.

            “You
            make this statement:”

            Actually you took that statement out of context. I assume you are going to
            construct a “strawman” and knock it down.

            <<>>

            When taken in context it is true. There are only two options that are
            available, the option of saving both is impacted by the fact that everyone dies
            and for that reason everyone can be saved for a period of time at some point in
            time. In context the rate of death is 1.8 per second. You left out the context.

            “I
            think I see the problem here. You’re spouting this notion that “more
            people are dying that can be saved”. Saved how? From what? Where? Why?”

            They can be saved in the same manner that a fetus can be saved.

            “Your
            own terminology is getting in the way of any actual points you can make. If
            “saved” means being saved from eventual death, you’re still wrong.
            The birth rate outpaces the death rate, by a rather wide margin…a fact, you
            again, glanced over and can’t refute in any way.”

            The fact that the birth rate outpaces the death rate is immaterial. We all
            still die. And we can all be saved in the same sense.

            “So
            now I’ve shown how you’re concretely in a fallacy.”

            No, you have constructed a strawman fallacy. You have added nothing to the
            conversation.

            —–“ Here’s how I break that line of thought. Let’s go here:

            “It
            is true that you may make a choice between two options and that those

            options are limited to either saving a born life or an unborn life. It

            is a fact that if you choose to save the fetus, the born baby dies.

            Until you prove that is false you are wrong.”

            The
            fallacy, and your error, is that you’re saying either a baby dies, or a fetus
            dies. But if both live, what happens?>>>>

            The fact that 7 billiion people are dying makes it impossible to save a fetus
            without letting a born baby die. For example if you spend 1 second saving a
            fetus, then in that second 1.8 born babies die. Your act of forcing the birth
            of a fetus leads you to ignore the life of a born baby. The act of saving the
            fetus did not “kill” the baby, your choice caused its death.

            “ They’re both born, and grow up. Do they die at some point?”

            All life dies. You are hinting at a strawman argument here that would imply that
            both can live even though one or the other will die, depending on your choice.
            I do not imply that you “must” choose to save a life. I only imply that if you
            choose to save a fetus you in fact must let a born baby die.

            ““ Of course. Is it when they’re still a baby? I hope not, but the life
            expectancy of humans isn’t 3 months.”

            That is another strawman fallacy. The death rate of fetuses, babies or adults
            does not impact your choice. You either choose to save the baby, or it dies.

            “So
            you are left with this:

            1.
            Save the fetus. Normal outcome: Birth”

            The demonstratable outcome of saving a fetus is the death of one of these
            people: http://www.poverty.com

            In order to “save” the fetus you must let one of those people or your neighbor
            here die. You cannot prove that you have a normal outcome of birth without
            causing death.

            “2. Save the baby: Normal outcome of birth: Life”

            If you save the baby, the fetus must die.

            “3.
            Kill the fetus: No life, no longevity.”

            You do not kill the fetus, you choose to save the baby. The death of the fetus
            must occur or the baby dies. However that does not mean that a woman cannot
            choose to save her own fetus. Of course she can, but if she does she gives up
            the opportunity to save a born baby without some cost to that baby occurring. A
            woman that chooses to have a baby is not the same as a pro lifer choosing to
            let a baby die to save a fetus.

            “So
            there’s at least 3 choices. You’re fallacy lies in assuming that because a
            fetus lives, a baby dies.”

            Please do not lie about what I say. That is a strawman statement. There are not
            three choices.

            “One can still have a fetus live, and a
            baby live, with the outcome being positive.”

            Not if it is an unwanted fetus. If you force the birth of a fetus, that is a
            choice to ignore the life of a baby.

            “Abortion
            has only 1 means and 1 end. It stops the process of life from growing. “

            The scientific proof is that before Roe, 6 million lives were lost by the pro
            life movement, after Roe the proof is that 25 million babies were born. So a
            count of babies proves you are wrong. Pro lifers kill babies or lead to them
            not being born.

            “Allowing
            a fetus to grow, or a baby to be born, presents 2 more options beyond that, and
            generally with positive results, i.e it lives and grows up.”

            Your choice to force birth denies you the opportunity to save born babies that
            are dying. So many die because of the pro life movement, they do not grow up.

            “Simple
            example, simple reasoning”

            The flaws you exhibit lead you to kill innocent born babies to attempt to save
            fetuses some of which are not human and may not be alive.

        • MarcusFenix

          So, let’s sum this up. People who are pro life kill kids.

          You do realize how absolutely stupid that sounds right? It’s completely bass ackwards. Your entire line of thinking makes zero sense, common or otherwise.

          Out of just sheer, morbid curiosity though…what line of thinking delivers you to this conclusion? How do you make the incredibly large and intellectually devoid jump of “If someone supports saving life, they’re killing babies.”

          If you’re asking what i would “Rather”…I’d rather you use coherent sentences and actual discussion to spit out what you mean, than this pyschobabble nonsense about people who are saving and killing kids all in the same sentence.

          You’re also towing the low information voter line when you use a statement that includes stupidity like “pro life = anti choice”. Those two things really have nothing to do with one another, and is nothing more than a catch phrase for large scale abortion supporters to marginalize their opposition. It’s dishonest and untrue. I’d “rather” you use common sense and not put both in the same category.

          But yes…please provide me with this fascinating argument about how saving kids and killing kids all happen at the same time and why. I’d love to tear that to shreds too, and I’m already working on my first cup of coffee, so I’m ready when you are.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Let make this simple. I have already given you the reason that you are murdering babies and I have explained how you murder the babies on this site: http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com
            If you think you can “tear it up” then by all means do so.
            The scientific fact is that there are more people dying than can be saved. Why? Because everyone dies. And because there are more people dying than can be saved, you must choose whom to save. Why? Because there are 7 million born people on earth, all are dying. In fact they are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. If you choose to save a fetus, and spend one second “saving fetuses”, then in that second 1.8 born babies will die. So you can’t save both fetuses and babies. If you spend time saving fetuses, babies die and vice versa.

          • MarcusFenix

            As you wish then. As a start….everyone dies. You can’t “save” 7 billion people. Anything that lives eventually dies. You’re trying to equate the entire life of every person with the numbers of abortion, and make a case. Those facts not only have nothing to do with one another in the tense you’re speaking, but also are completely different subject matters.

            Let’s start with your “proof”. The website you’re mentioning is run by, and uses material, by R.C Crawford. He’s an inventor, and could be called a scientist as a stretch, but his expertise are not in genetics, not in pediatrics, or any other legitimate science to quote. Those things on his site, with regard to his points, are opinion. His opinions, I might add, are incredibly liberal. His entire stance is comprised of twisting or stretching truth to fit his own liberal narrative. He’s not some unbiased scientific observer. He’s using his background to falsely parlay knowledge on something of which he has no actual scientific background. I couldn’t even find out on Google the things he’s invented, much less anything that relates to this topic.

            Further, there is not, nor have there ever been, laws of science named “The Laws of Charity”, “The Laws of New Life”, and so on. Again, more of his opinion. As a matter of factual debate, the single sentence preceding his “laws” states the following:

            “There are several scientific laws that impact how society should view legal abortion.”

            Notice that it it says “should”. Not -does-. Nor can you find **any** of the “laws” he states as some empirical fact anywhere in science under those terms, in any manual or scientific journal, other than places where it’s a book he’s written, which doesn’t really count. He has -zero- scientific principles used on that website to date. These supposed laws are simply terms he made up, or borrowed. It’s not real science.

            If *that* is what you’re basing your opinion on…then you’re doing so at the opinion of others, with no research on what you’re talking about. You’ve accepted something because it had “scientific” at the front…without checking to see if the person was in fact a scientist, much less one who had sway in this particular field. That site is one of opinion, of one man, and has nothing to do with actual science in this respect. He phrases things well, and comes across as intelligent, but there’s a clear and undeniable difference between intelligent opinion and actual scientific fact and law. He’s passing the former off as the latter, which is nothing more than fallacious and disingenuous. At worst, he’s a liberal hustler who follows the old maxim of “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance (or truth, in this case), then baffle them with your BS.”

            Shredded, rather properly. I’m also far from done with this.

            I’ll keep this simple, for you.

            If there are 1.8 people dying for every 1 person born, then the population of our planet would be going down, not up. The statistic would mean (lets round up) that 2 people die for every 1 person born. However, ever major statistician and fact on the planet Earth that deals with populations disagrees with you. The world population is growing, not shrinking as you’re stating directly. You’re just not even in the realm of being right on this. By all solid accounts, we’ll have 8 billion people on this planet by the year 2025. If 2 people were dying for every 1 born, we’d be in decline.

            Check this site out: http://www.worldometers.info/

            It’s a real time measure of births, death, and population. As of this minute, its’ showing 257k births today….versus 106k deaths. If anything, this (and any other search you can muster) clearly demonstrates that the -inverse- of what you’re claiming is true.

            At best, you can make a claim like, “everyone is dying!!!” and that’s about it. On a long enough time line, the survivability of any person bottoms out at zero. We all die. That’s really the only factual thing you’ve said so far.

            To really smash this down a bit more…saving the life of a fetus, or baby if you prefer, doesn’t actually involve -killing- someone else. That line of reasoning is just a massive fallacy you’re working with to try and justify the remainder of the items I’ve already demonstrated are patently false. Saving one life does not directly or exclusively doom another to death, much less two (as you’ve claimed). The only other possible point you might be trying to make is fetal death rates versus live births, which even that would be completely wrong.

            The logic of this one, however, is simple enough for even liberals to follow. By saving one life, you’ve saved one life. There’s no equivalent exchange process, unless the mother dies in childbirth. One life saved = one life saved. At no time is there some exclusive clause, scientific or otherwise, which states that by doing one part of your scenario, the other must empirically be true. It’s not even good common sense, much less this framework of “science” you’ve pretended to quote.

            Abortion, on the other hand…doesn’t save anything. There’s no exchange of life. One abortion = one dead child/fetus/baby….whichever you wish to call it. There’s no life which springs from it on its own, there’s no plus side by which an abortion in once place saves another baby elsewhere.

            Very simply put:

            1 saved child = 1 saved child.
            1 saved unborn child = 1 saved unborn child
            1 abortion = Nothing saved, 1 life dead.

            It’s just that easy man.

            If you’d like to try again, I’ve got plenty of time to shoot down your pseudo-science some more.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “As you wish then. As a start….everyone dies. You can’t “save” 7 billion people. Anything that lives eventually dies. You’re trying to equate the entire life of every person with the numbers of abortion, and make a case. Those facts not only have nothing to do with one another in the tense you’re speaking, but also are completely different subject matters. “

            It is good to see that you agree that every person dies and that there are more people that are dying than can be saved. That admission proves my “Law of Charity”. It is a scientific fact that there are more people dying than can be saved. For that reason there will always be people that can be saved through the use of triage. One only has to choose to save them. If they choose to save a born person, then that person may be saved. If they choose not to save that person, then the person will likely die. That is one of the main theories that is based on the Law of Charity. Thanks for making one proof of the law.

            “Let’s start with your “proof”. The website you’re mentioning is run by, and uses material, by R.C Crawford. He’s an inventor, and could be called a scientist as a stretch, but his expertise are not in genetics, not in pediatrics, or any other legitimate science to quote.”

            His(my) expertise is in formulating laws of science. If you think otherwise, then make you case.

            “ Those things on his site, with regard to his points, are opinion.”

            You have already substantiated the “Law of Charity” in your discussion above.
            There are more people dying than can be saved. If you can disprove that then you will have made a point.

            “ His opinions, I might add, are incredibly liberal.”

            I am liberal.

            “ His entire stance is comprised of twisting or stretching truth to fit his own liberal narrative.”

            You have already agreed that there are more people dying than can be saved. How
            is that stretching the truth. It is a scientific law.

            “He’s not some unbiased scientific observer.”

            The unbiased truth is that you have a choice, you may choose to save babies or fetuses.

            “ He’s using his background to falsely parlay knowledge on something of which
            he has no actual scientific background.”

            You have agreed I am right. Now you are falsely parlaying you knowledge.

            “ I couldn’t even find out on Google the things he’s invented, much less anything that relates to this topic. “

            The choice you may make is that you must choose to save a fetus or a baby, if you call yourself pro life. If you choose to save a fetus, a baby will die.

            “Further, there is not, nor have there ever been, laws of science named “The Laws of Charity”, “The Laws of New Life”, and so on. Again, more of his opinion. As a matter of factual debate, the single sentence preceding his “laws” states the following:”

            Laws are not created or destroyed. They are simply part of the rules of the universe. I simply paired a name with a law that everyone can see and react to. If you believe that there is proof that the laws don’t exist, then offer that proof. Otherwise lets discuss the laws.

            You are just playing games with words.

            “ Nor can you find **any** of the “laws” he states as some empirical fact anywhere in science under those terms, in any manual or scientific journal, other than places where it’s a book he’s written, which doesn’t really count.”

            The laws are simple to view and to validate. You have validated one law in this diatribe of yours. The other laws are simply fact that can be viewed in nature. If you think that they don’t exist, then make your point. But saying something doesn’t exist when it obviously does is proof of nothing.

            “ He has -zero- scientific principles used on that website to date.”

            simply saying something further down in a response that you admit to be true further up a response is proof you are wrong.

            “ These supposed laws are simply terms he made up, or borrowed. It’s not real science.”

            Laws cannot be made up. They either exist or they do not exist. If they do not exist then they may be disproved, that is how science works. So the laws are open to discussion. But you must have some logical reason to support your empty accusations. So far you have proved the laws to be true, not false.
            “Shredded, rather properly. I’m also far from done with this.”

            So far you have said nothing at all. If I have missed some point please explain.
            “I’ll keep this simple, for you.”

            It doesn’t appear that you understand what you are saying. You realize that simply wasting my time with personal attacks does not prove your position?
            <>

            No one has ever said that 1.8 persons are dying for each person born. Either you are mistaken or you are lying. Which is it?
            I am not going to deal with your lie or misunderstanding.

            “To really smash this down a bit more…saving the life of a fetus, or baby if you prefer, doesn’t actually involve -killing- someone else. That line of reasoning is just a massive fallacy you’re working with to try and justify the remainder of the items I’ve already demonstrated are patently false.”

            I don’t say that saving the life of a fetus involves killing someone else. I make it clear and your lies don’t influence the truth. My statement is that you have a choice of which life to save, the fetus or the born baby. Your choice to save the fetus can only be accomplished by allowing the death of a born baby. I have made that clear. Your lies will not advance the argument.

            “ Saving one life does not directly or exclusively doom another to death, much less two (as you’ve claimed).”

            You are welcome to prove your theory that you can save the fetus without a baby dying. So have a shot. If you spend one second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 babies will die. You have a choice of which to save. If you don’t in fact have that choice, then you are right. Let me make it clear I do not say you have an obligation to save either.

            “ The only other possible point you might be trying to make is fetal death rates versus live births, which even that would be completely wrong. “

            My points are clear, don’t try and confuse the reader. You know what I am saying, because it has been said. So don’t lie.
            “The logic of this one, however, is simple enough for even liberals to follow.”

            Do you think insults will make points?

            “ By saving one life, you’ve saved one life. There’s no equivalent exchange process, unless the mother dies in childbirth.”

            I agree that you have made the choice to save a fetus. You also had the option to save the baby. Your choice was to let the baby die. You didn’t choose to save the innocent baby. You had no obligation to save the fetus or the baby, yet you chose to save the fetus and let the baby die.

            “ One life saved = one life saved. At no time is there some exclusive clause, scientific or otherwise, which states that by doing one part of your scenario, the other must empirically be true.”

            It is a fact that you may choose to save one or the other. The one you choose not to save will die.

            “ It’s not even good common sense, much less this framework of “science” you’ve pretended to quote. “

            There are 7 billion people dying that cannot be saved. You may choose to save one of those people or you may choose to save a fetus. It is a scientific is a scientific fact that 1.8 born people are dying, if you choose to not save them, they will die.
            “Abortion, on the other hand…doesn’t save anything.”

            Abortion saves a planned baby. If there is no abortion then the opportunity to afford another child is diminished. That is supported by the fact that after Roe the number of births increased.

            “ There’s no exchange of life. One abortion = one dead child/fetus/baby….whichever you wish to call it. There’s no life which springs from it on its own, there’s no plus side by which an abortion in once place saves another baby elsewhere. “

            The scientific fact is that there is a choice of which life to save. If you deny that, then prove your point.
            “Very simply put:
            1 saved child = 1 saved child.
            1 saved unborn child = 1 saved unborn child
            1 abortion = Nothing saved, 1 life dead.”

            Your theory is false on its face. The fact is that if there is an abortion of an unwanted child it clears the womb for a wanted child. If the womb is forced to be occupied by an unwanted baby, then a wanted baby is denied an opportunity to live in that occupied womb. If you think otherwise prove your point.
            You say 1 saved child = 1 saved child, but that is a false and unsupported theory. Your theory is that a fetus is a child and you have not proved that to be true. So the entire idea is false.
            “It’s just that easy man.”

            Your ideas are a result of not understanding what you are reading.
            “If you’d like to try again, I’ve got plenty of time to shoot down your pseudo-science some more”

            LOL

          • MarcusFenix

            I’ve read this…and frankly, it’s complete crap. You’re simply trying to equate one statement with another based on your own version of truth, which i demonstrated as completely false. If you want to have a conversation about natural law, such as all things living that die..that’s one thing. But you’re making up nonsense and calling it something it’s not. You likewise are misrepresenting even the basics of that particular discussion so that it makes you sound correct. But again, you’re not.

            You’re using “laws” that don’t exist. There is no scientific “Law of Charity”. You can say there is until you’re blue in the face, but doing so changes absolutely nothing about the idea that it’s not a scientific law. No matter how you spin it, no matter how you phrase it, that and the other “laws” you quoted don’t exist except as concepts on a liberal website.

            It’s not science. Never has been. Never will be.

            If it is…then please go to a legitimate, unbiased, *scientifically sound* website and refute it.

            You can’t, because those things don’t exist.

            The rest of your rant is just nonsensical.

            You’re claiming that you, and Crawford, have expertise in creating science law? You can’t even begin to see the massive level of hubris involved with that claim, let alone substantiate it. Please give me a clear, defining list of science “law” you’ve created, that is recognized by the science community at large. Again, you can’t….because it’s not reality. What you’re proposing, through this quack-job, is philosophy. Please tell me where either yourself or Crawford have created these laws, they are peer reviewed and published in credible science journals and taught anywhere other than your own heads. Regardless of any other fact…the only place to find these fantastic laws are in your head and on his site. Quote natural law, if you wish…and we can have a discussion on that. But your already demonstrable lack of honesty about things (ranging from “I came up with these laws” -which you state are natural, so…did you make them or are they natural?- to the stats about death and life…you’re fishing for things to twist around) simply make a discussion with you less than possible.

            Again, you can’t actually discuss these things, because they aren’t law. They’re opinions, and some of them are broad, without any merit, and based on the rants of a single liberal guy in Texas.

            And again….not science.

            Let’s discuss the rest, shall we?

            My agreement that people die, and always have, doesn’t validate your statements at all, much less try to validate the insane notion of your pseudo-scientific principles. I cannot give proof for a law of science that does *not* exist. Unless you’re saying -you- created it, in which case we’ll have to wait for the peer review. Then following it with “laws cannot be created nor destroyed”, as if it were matter….using laws you came up with….I don’t need to go further with that, to show how absolutely ignorant that is on its face.

            But to debunk it totally, and to correct you from putting words in my mouth…I didn’t say there were more people who die or cannot be saved, than can. The birth rate outpacing the death rate is of importance there. You’re making the equation out like so:

            If you own a car, you’re responsible for every fatality on the highways today, because you’re in the pool of people who own a vehicle.

            That, as well as everything you’ve spouted off on here, is so absurd as to be laughable. I don’t need to play word games, since the material I’ve presented is direct and forthcoming…unlike your “laws” and the idea that you’re somehow on the cutting edge of scientific discovery with your friend Crawford. You state that “laws cannot be made up”, as if you beat Newton to the discovery of gravity.

            I don’t have to prove anything for “laws” that just don’t exist. Call it what you want, but comparing yourself to scientists who actually have created laws is idiotic, at best.

            When you have actual, scientifically justifiable, legitimate and peer reviewed data….then we can have a discussion about laws. I cannot disprove a negative, nor can I disprove something that (in the science community you’re so clearly a part of) does not exist outside of your head or Crawford’s website. When I stated that there were zero actual laws of science on that website was correct. Not a single one of those things in his/your list is recognized anywhere, by anyone, as science.

            You certainly haven’t proven they are, so why bother running around on my part to debunk them other than what I have?

            If you want to talk about natural law, as in “everyone dies”…then that’s fine. You manage to twist that idea around as well, and can’t stay on point. I debunked your death and life ratios, yet you couldn’t address that. I debunked the fact that people are dying faster than being born. You couldn’t address that. I debunked your “laws”, and the best you can come back with an idea akin to “Well, I’m making them up. and they’re not real….so I’m going to twist what you say and just make it so you agree anyway.”

            Do you see how foolish that line of thinking is, with regards to everything you’ve said?

            You still have yet to make a single, cogent point about your stance other than fictitious stories about science you clearly don’t comprehend, while twisting things around to suit your own narrative and shoving words into people’s mouth in order to try and prove your right….when you’ve been shown anything but correct.

            Unless you can actually talk about logic and science, without making things up in your own head or using a quack like Crawford to argue points that you can’t prove, justify, or even articulate properly…then there’s no real discussion to have here.

            In sum…we could do this all day. I say something, you twist it around, make a claim about some law you just happened to name and create, and continue repeating the same things. It doesn’t make you any more correct than when you fished them off Crawford’s site.

            I will note, again….you simply played word games. You couldn’t refute a single fact I stated.

            Good luck with whatever nonsense you wish to believe. In reality, the rest of us will stick with the facts.

            -Done-

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            §
            “I’ve read this…and
            frankly, it’s complete crap. You’re simply trying to equate one statement with
            another based on your own version of truth, which i demonstrated as completely
            false.”

            What you have done is attempt to defend your position by insulting me. You have
            failed to make any argument that is based upon what I say. In fact you either
            do not understand what I say or you are attempting to lie about what I say. For
            example you said that I believe that for every 1.8 person killed 1 person is
            saved. I have never said such a thing and you are either lying or unable to
            read.

            “ If you want to have a conversation about natural law, such as all things
            living that die..that’s one thing.”

            I am not speaking of natural law. I am speaking of scientific law. Don’t
            confuse the reader. Please don’t lie. If you cannot discuss the issue with
            intelligence then you will not impress anyone.

            “ But you’re making up nonsense and calling it something it’s not. You likewise
            are misrepresenting even the basics of that particular discussion so that it
            makes you sound correct. But again, you’re not.”

            If I were not correct, you will offer proof. You have not offered any proof. In
            fact you have abused the facts.

            “You’re
            using “laws” that don’t exist. There is no scientific “Law of
            Charity”.”

            You have agreed that all life dies and that we cannot save everyone. That is
            you agreeing to the “Law of Charity”. If you think some people live forever
            then make that point. We will do from there.

            “ You can say there is until you’re blue in the face, but doing so changes
            absolutely nothing about the idea that it’s not a scientific law. No matter how
            you spin it, no matter how you phrase it, that and the other “laws”
            you quoted don’t exist except as concepts on a liberal website. “

            You have already agreed that the basis of the law is true. What you call it is immaterial.

            “It’s
            not science. Never has been. Never will be.”

            You agree it is indisputable fact, that is all that matters. The facts show it
            is a law, if you don’t want to lose face and admit to the truth, that is your
            problem.

            “If
            it is…then please go to a legitimate, unbiased, *scientifically sound*
            website and refute it.

            You
            can’t, because those things don’t exist. “

            My site is an unbiased, legitimate site until it is proved otherwise. I have
            invited you to attempt to disprove the laws and you cannot. So it remains
            legitmate.

            “You’re
            claiming that you, and Crawford, have expertise in creating science law?”

            I am Crawford, and I cannot create law. I can only observe it and report what I
            see. If you have some proof the laws I report are not laws then I would certainly
            appreciate you correcting me. But so far all you have done is misrepresent what
            I say and insult me. If you have some proof, then offer it..

            “ You can’t even begin to see the massive level of hubris involved with that
            claim, let alone substantiate it.”

            I have substantiated my observation with the scientific fact that 7 billion
            people are dying. I quote in my theory that they are dying faster than they can
            be saved. I have asked you to disprove those statements and you have failed. I
            hope you will offer your proof.

            “ Please give me a clear, defining list of science “law” you’ve
            created, that is recognized by the science community at large.”

            I have stated several times that no person can create a law. I have observed 6
            laws and have reported them. I named them because that makes discussion easier.
            You do not have to call them by the names I use.

            “Again, you can’t….because it’s not
            reality. What you’re proposing, through this quack-job, is philosophy.”

            No, I am reporting an observation of a set of scientific laws. You are welcome
            to disprove what I say.

            “Please tell me where either yourself or
            Crawford have created these laws, they are peer reviewed and published in
            credible science journals and taught anywhere other than your own heads.
            Regardless of any other fact…the only place to find these fantastic laws are
            in your head and on his site.”

            The laws are the most investigated laws in the history of science. No one is
            refused the opportunity to disprove the laws. So they have been confirmed by
            everyone. You may not agree with the laws and I am asking you to disprove them
            if you think you can. No other laws have had that type of scrutiny.

            “Quote natural law, if you wish…and we
            can have a discussion on that.”

            Natural law is not scientific law.

            “But your already demonstrable lack of
            honesty about things (ranging from “I came up with these laws” -which
            you state are natural, so…did you make them or are they natural?- to the
            stats about death and life…you’re fishing for things to twist around) simply
            make a discussion with you less than possible.”

            There is a difference in Natural Law and natural scientific laws.

            “Again,
            you can’t actually discuss these things, because they aren’t law.”

            The proof is that they are laws. The scientific fact is that everyone dies. If
            you can disprove that, then you will win the argument. I don’t care if you call
            them the “Scientific Abortion Laws”, call them what you want. They are laws.

            “ They’re opinions, and some of them are broad, without any merit, and based on
            the rants of a single liberal guy in Texas.”

            If that is what you believe, then prove what you say.

            “And
            again….not science.”

            It is a scientific fact of nature that there are more people dying than can be
            saved. You have agreed to that and it is a scientific fact.

            “Let’s
            discuss the rest, shall we? My agreement that people die, and always have,
            doesn’t validate your statements at all, much less try to validate the insane
            notion of your pseudo-scientific principles. I cannot give proof for a law of
            science that does *not* exist. Unless you’re saying -you- created it, in which
            case we’ll have to wait for the peer review. Then following it with “laws
            cannot be created nor destroyed”, as if it were matter….using laws you
            came up with….I don’t need to go further with that, to show how absolutely
            ignorant that is on its face.”

            All your rant is based upon the precept that I created a law. I have not
            created a law. Laws cannot be created. I have observed a law. The law is clear.
            You have not disproved it.

            —–“But
            to debunk it totally, and to correct you from putting words in my mouth…I
            didn’t say there were more people who die or cannot be saved, than can. The
            birth rate outpacing the death rate is of importance there. You’re making the
            equation out like so:

            “If
            you own a car, you’re responsible for every fatality on the highways today,
            because you’re in the pool of people who own a vehicle.”

            The fact is that vehicles do not exist due to scientific law, so your analogy
            fails. Humans exist under set principles of science that are based upon
            observations. The observation is that no person lives forever. Cars are not people
            and do not live. So there is no analogy.

            “That,
            as well as everything you’ve spouted off on here, is so absurd as to be
            laughable.”

            I have asked you to prove what you say. I have proved by observation that all
            people die. It is your duty to disprove that observation. Or make another observation.
            I don’t care. But insults are not argument.

            “ I don’t need to play word games, since the material I’ve presented is direct
            and forthcoming…unlike your “laws” and the idea that you’re somehow
            on the cutting edge of scientific discovery with your friend Crawford. You
            state that “laws cannot be made up”, as if you beat Newton to the
            discovery of gravity.”

            Newton discovered gravity. Gravity existed before it was discovered and functioned
            in the same way before and after its discovery. The same is true with the laws
            I observe.

            “I
            don’t have to prove anything for “laws” that just don’t exist. Call
            it what you want, but comparing yourself to scientists who actually have
            created laws is idiotic, at best.”

            No scientist has ever created a law. They observe laws.

            “When
            you have actual, scientifically justifiable, legitimate and peer reviewed
            data….then we can have a discussion about laws. I cannot disprove a negative,
            nor can I disprove something that (in the science community you’re so clearly a
            part of) does not exist outside of your head or Crawford’s website. When I
            stated that there were zero actual laws of science on that website was correct.
            Not a single one of those things in his/your list is recognized anywhere, by
            anyone, as science. “

            It is a recognized fact that every person dies. I have asked you to disprove
            that fact. You have offered no proof, yet you deny it is a scientific fact.

            “You
            certainly haven’t proven they are, so why bother running around on my part to
            debunk them other than what I have? “

            I have proved that you have a choice to save a fetus or to let it die and save
            a baby instead. You have been asked for proof that theory is false. I do not
            claim that to be a law, I claim it is a theory. You have not addressed that fact
            and I therefore assume you must agree. Do you agree that you have a choice to
            save the fetus or a baby?

            “If
            you want to talk about natural law, as in “everyone dies”…then
            that’s fine. You manage to twist that idea around as well, and can’t stay on
            point.”

            I have been precisely on point. You have simply made up straw man arguments and
            have failed at those.

            “ I debunked your death and life ratios, yet you couldn’t address that.”

            I have never made death and life ratios, you made that up and proved your own
            made up accusation. That is a “strawman” fallacy.

            “ I debunked the fact that people are dying faster than being born.”

            I never said that and it is something you made up and then proved. It is a “starwman”
            fallacy.

            “ You couldn’t address that. I debunked your “laws”, and the best you
            can come back with an idea akin to “Well, I’m making them up. and they’re
            not real….so I’m going to twist what you say and just make it so you agree
            anyway.””

            You are attempting to make another strawman fallacy. I have never said that I
            made up any law. You are lying.

            “Do
            you see how foolish that line of thinking is, with regards to everything you’ve
            said?”

            What I have said it true and based upon unchanging scientific fact and theory.

            “You
            still have yet to make a single, cogent point about your stance other than
            fictitious stories about science you clearly don’t comprehend, while twisting
            things around to suit your own narrative and shoving words into people’s mouth
            in order to try and prove your right….when you’ve been shown anything but
            correct.”

            I have stated my case and asked you to respond. So far you have simply made up
            arguments and have answered your own “Strawmen”.

            “Unless you can actually talk about logic and science, without making things up
            in your own head or using a quack like Crawford to argue points that you can’t
            prove, justify, or even articulate properly…then there’s no real discussion
            to have here.”

            You have been asked to support your claims and have opted to insult instead of
            defend your baseless claims.

            “In
            sum…we could do this all day. I say something, you twist it around, make a
            claim about some law you just happened to name and create, and continue
            repeating the same things. It doesn’t make you any more correct than when you
            fished them off Crawford’s site.”

            I have been very fair with you. I have asked you to support your baseless
            accusations. Instead you have chosen to insult. That will not win over many
            people.

            “I
            will note, again….you simply played word games. You couldn’t refute a single
            fact I stated.”

            You haven’t stated in facts. You made up strawman fallacies and answered your
            own made up ideas. You have not even addressed what I say.

            “Good
            luck with whatever nonsense you wish to believe. In reality, the rest of us
            will stick with the facts.”

            LOL

          • MarcusFenix

            I got about 1/4 of the way through this, and realized that the longer I drag this on, the worse it’s going to get. If anyone here is being intellectually dishonest, friend, it’s you. The only strawman, or other fallacy you wish to name, is your entire position. I’m going to keep this short, because the more long-winded you get, the worse your argument becomes.

            First, you did not, in fact (as you claim) refute a single stat I’ve posted. There’s not a single instance of you doing so, yet you’re claiming it. If we start with the living vs dying part of your “argument”, you’ve made claims repeatedly about those numbers. You have yet to refute the fact that your statements make your position that humanity is in decline, yet populations swell. Since you can’t seem to do basic math….if you lose 2 people for every 1 person who is born, populations decline. That isn’t the case, and every stat on the planet supports it. You’re delusional for believing otherwise.

            Second, if you want to call the natural law of death “The Law of Charity”, or any other psuedo-scientific word you can claim, then go right ahead. But by saying you made those things up, and laying claim on them, is the same as saying you invented the names pertaining to the natural order of life and death.

            You didn’t. Those things already have names. Remember the hubris I mentioned. That comes into play here.

            You likewise cannot refute anything said about these “laws” you’ve created. And you did, in fact, state that you created them. Whether you’re actually Crawford (which would be sad, given the state of your arguments…and posing as some “scientist”), or some wannabe has no bearing on things. There are currently no “laws” which appear on the site you linked that are acknowledged by any scientific body or entity, anywhere. At best, you created a label, and nothing more. That’s not hard. I could label your bit about charity as “The Law of Compromised Giving”. See what I did there?

            Remember your Einstein comparison? Here:

            “A person does not have to be a scientist of a particular field to observe the laws of science. Albert Einstein at his prime was a patent examiner with training in math. His advancements in science were due to to his ability to observe what can be seen and to make theory about what he observed.”

            You mean…math…as in what he used to bring about his theories…which would be his area of expertise, which makes that silly as well. He used mathematics and his observations to bring about wonderful scientific theory. At -best-…you relabeled something on a website. That’s not creating scientific law. That’s generating hype for a website and a person 99.9% of people have never heard of.

            Yet, according to you…every Joe Sixpack in America can, by virtue of your view, create scientific law. Amazing.

            So far….you have come across as someone who named natural law, because no one else has done that. Now, you’re asking us to believe that even though you have no expertise, study, or case study knowledge in the areas of which we’re discussing, that we should just believe your “laws” are correct.

            Otherwise, all you’ve managed to do is make pages and pages of accusations and strawman arguments on your own, and somehow attribute those to me. Yet, you’ve never once countered a single claim I’ve made.

            You’re a sham. That’s not an insult. It’s not my attempt at being nasty. It’s just the plain, honest truth.

            You’ve said “What I have said it true and based upon unchanging scientific fact and theory.”

            Yet, again……there’s not a single law you’ve mentioned from the site that is known. Anywhere. By anyone.

            If natural law and your laws of death and life, or Charity, or w/e you wish to call them…..are not the same, then what are yours? Improvements?

            You have been, however, anything but fair. You’ve spent pages and pages of text simply bloviating about things, and spent more time trying to make it seem as if I were in the wrong…than you were actually making a point.

            No matter how many times I repeat stats, or defuse your statements, you just label yourself correct and lie to do so. The only person who has lied, used fallacies, or refuses to answer a simple statement has been you. I supported claims…so your answer is to turn around and, like a second grader, and just say that I didn’t. The facts were laid bare, and your best retort was basically “I don’t like these facts, so…..no, i dont accept them, and thus you didn’t.”

            Typical liberal deflection. If you can’t win any other way, you close your eyes and scream long and loud until people stop bothering to feed your troll-like nature.

            When you can actually answer the statements I made the first time, and actually counter them with something you didn’t pretend to create in your massive underground science lab…we’ll all be here.

            And just for grins…this gem:

            “I have proved that you have a choice to save a fetus or to let it die and save a baby instead.”

            You still have yet to answer as to why either have to die, or why you cant save both. You couldn’t even spell out what the hell that means, or in what context, much less the fact that I nuked that idea elsewhere in the post.

            I’m pretty much done arguing with someone this far below me. Keep making up science in your basement there, Dick. No one really is paying attention to you. Sorry. You’re just not worth anymore time. If that’s offensive, I don’t really care. You’re just more liberal scum, who can’t debate properly, who refuses to actually answer and retort on point, and someone who believes that they’ve basically made up the laws of nature.

            When you, with your lack of any experience on anything relating to your “science laws”, can be published and peer reviewed…you know, like a real scientist…we can continue.

            (Side note…..really, like 6 pages of compost worthy crap. You wasted a lot of time basically saying nothing and proving even less)

            We’re done.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “If *that*
            is what you’re basing your opinion on…then you’re doing so at the opinion of
            others, with no research on what you’re talking about.”

            Laws are observed, not invented or theorized. They either exist or they do not
            exist. The law section of the page http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com
            is law, the theory section is theory. Both are open to debate and can be
            disproved if wrong. You are more than welcome to disprove them. I will help you
            with my observations and will clarify what I observe.

            “ You’ve accepted something because it had “scientific” at the
            front…without checking to see if the person was in fact a scientist, much
            less one who had sway in this particular field.”

            A person does not have to be a scientist of a particular field to observe the
            laws of science. Albert Einstein at his prime was a patent examiner with training
            in math. His advancements in science were due to to his ability to observe what
            can be seen and to make theory about what he observed.

            “ That site is one of opinion, of one man, and has nothing to do with actual
            science in this respect.”

            I make statements that you agree are true. Every scientist that have read the laws
            have obviously agreed they are true. For example each law simply states what
            can be seen and verified by any scientist or lay person. All of the laws are
            open to debate, and none have been disproved.

            “ He phrases things well, and comes across as intelligent, but there’s a clear
            and undeniable difference between intelligent opinion and actual scientific
            fact and law.”

            Then state that difference and make a cogent argument, not accusations.

            There is a difference here, I have stated scientific laws and you have not
            offered any evidence they are not laws. All you have done is make personal
            attacks and insults.

          • MarcusFenix

            As noted below…you’re using names of laws that Crawford….and below, you claim yourself, have created.

            Not a single science entity on the planet has “The Law of Charity” or the others, listed in their records.

            You wasted like 2 pages saying the same thing you did again below….and still answered nothing that I said as fact.

            I did state differences….like the fact you’ve admitted below you’ve “created science law”…………Come on, really? You expect us to believe you came up with this all on your own, yet you couldn’t even be bothered to know, much less refute, the entire statistics of population growth vs. death.

            Keep going with the “I think it’s science law, and Crawford says its it, so……you’re wrong” line. It’s not getting you anywhere when you can back nothing up with directly stated facts, nor can you refute a single fact I’ve stated.

            At best, as noted again below…you’re playing word games to suit your purpose, and doing so poorly.

            Is it that real science and actual scientists scare you? Just wondering. You don’t need to answer. :)

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Now until you answer, I think it is clear that you murder born babies to save fetuses. I am looking forward to your answer whereby you “tear me up” along with your explanation of how you will save all 7 billion people on earth. So enlighten me.

  • radicallyalyssa

    LOLOL. Brb, reading this before its taken down!

  • spitfire1938

    Well… I’m impressed by PP’s ability to kill 1400-1500 black babies every day and yet not get accused by ‘anyone’ of committing a form of deliberate genocide… while at the same time blacks, themselves, are actually praising PP’s efforts to “progressively” eliminate the black race from this Country. Twenty million and counting….

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      The scientific fact is that after Roe v Wade there was an increase in babies of 25 million. Before Roe, there was a decrease of 6 million babies. You are simply lying.

      • spitfire1938

        Thank you for correcting me Russel. I rechecked my figures at Federal Gov.USCDC and between 1973-2001 11,156,700 black babies were aborted! Now that figure is just over 13,000,000! 36% of black babies are aborted, on average, every year. That means my estimate was too high by 5,000,000 plus.
        But thats not the question Russel! The question is why no one is calling PP out for deliberate genocide against blacks?

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          The genocide is by the pro life movement. They choose to let black babies die.

          • MarcusFenix

            More rhetoric, accusations, incorrect facts….all those things you keep saying we’re all doing. How about some stats?

            Just saying “genocide is by the pro life movement” is completely contrary on it’s face. Even an elementary grasp of English would do wonders here. Think about that statement….break it down, for just a minute.

            Pro-life people look to preserve life. Genocide is, by definition, the complete opposite of saving or valuing life. Would this not then create a situation where liberals are guilty of something that is far beyond, and much worse, than genocide by their support of abortion? Abortion…you know, the destruction of something living?

            We could point out Planned Parenthood (they’re pretty liberal, yeah?) and their program of systematically telling minorities to abort….but don’t let more facts get in the way of those science laws you’ve created.

            You should give this up. You’re just not winning anything here by continuing the same, tired lines that are already proven false up and down the page.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            §
            “More rhetoric,
            accusations, incorrect facts….all those things you keep saying we’re all
            doing. How about some stats?”

            What stats do you want. I will furnish anything you need.

            “Just
            saying “genocide is by the pro life movement” is completely contrary
            on it’s face.”

            The fact is that pro lifers could save millions of children of all colors and
            races. But they choose to let those babies die in horrible conditions. Look
            here for the stats: http://www.poverty.com
            and you will see a graphical representation of the people you choose to let
            die. The fact is that the more black children you murder by letting them die,
            the more white fetuses you can save, right?

            “ Even an elementary grasp of English would do wonders here. Think about that
            statement….break it down, for just a minute.”

            You have a choice to save innocent black babies, children or adults or to save
            fetuses you cannot prove are even human or alive.

            “Pro-life
            people look to preserve life.”

            Hitler, like you, was pro life. Was he looking to preserve life? Or did he murder
            some people to save others, just like the pro life movement.

            “ Genocide is, by definition, the complete opposite of saving or valuing life.
            Would this not then create a situation where liberals are guilty of something
            that is far beyond, and much worse, than genocide by their support of abortion?
            Abortion…you know, the destruction of something living? “

            You and Hitler commit genocide by killing innocent people to save fetuses. You
            should look at the reputation of Hitler and ask yourself if you are happy with
            that. http://catholicarrogance.org/abortionundernazis.html

            “We
            could point out Planned Parenthood (they’re pretty liberal, yeah?) and their
            program of systematically telling minorities to abort….but don’t let more
            facts get in the way of those science laws you’ve created.”

            Hitler focused on the Jews and liberals and you focus on planned parenthood and
            the liberals. You both kill one life to save another.

            “You
            should give this up. You’re just not winning anything here by continuing the
            same, tired lines that are already proven false up and down the page”

            LOL

          • MarcusFenix

            So, before I finish for good with you, you’ve got like 3 fallacies including the Argumentum Ad Hitlerum in there. Impressive.

            The entire discussion you have…did you take something or get drunk? Seriously.

            You keep saying fetus’ and babies. Those two groups. Is it then the pro-life positions’ fault that adults starve to death to? How about elderly people? We clearly aren’t choosing babies to starve, or die…and certainly not fetus’ of any kind. How you arrive at that is about as empty headed as the rest of the discussion you hammered out earlier.

            You’re claiming that pro lifers are choosing death for babies….that’s already patently false, simply by giving someone the pro-life label. They can’t be for saving babies AND killing babies at the same time. Bad rhetoric at best, absolute fallacy on its face.

            Using your poverty.com subset, those are deaths from starvation…certainly not things we choose to let people die from. Your entire case makes it sound like there’s a group sitting somewhere who is making a list of “People We’re Going To Let Die Today.” Not only is that completely ignorant and almost not worth mentioning, but it’s not what you’re talking about.

            You keep saying fetus’ and babies. Those two groups. If you’re keeping it there within those confines, you’re assessments are incorrect. If you expand that to everyone else, you’re still incorrect. You’re also mind-numbingly incorrect about saying we “choose” to let them die. Does that mean that liberals and pro-choicers are also letting them die, and therefore are no better if not worse because they’re killing them before AND after they’re born?

            You can’t defend that position. It’s just not possible.

            I mean, seriously…you have above:

            “You and Hitler commit genocide by killing innocent people to save fetuses.”

            That doesn’t even make any sense. Who was killed to save a fetus? That statement is just effing retarded. Also, more Hitler-equating fallacy from you. Good work!

            Hitler, since you mentioned it, was an artist. Lots of liberals are artists. That doesn’t equate them, but you’ve used a fallacy to try and equate one group of people to Hitler, when they are not, and never have been, the same. More rhetoric, done poorly.

            The other statement about PP and Hitler….that’s just plain effing stupid. It’s not even worth the retort to point out how wrong that is…it speaks for itself.

            Saving a fetus, or a baby, doesn’t equal the death of another. You’ve never, once, explained how that screwed up reasoning works….mainly, because it just doesnt.

            At the end…you’re trying to make pro-life = pro-death. It’s not true, catagoricly or factually…and yet you keep saying it over and over. It’s like a broken record. People who support any type of pro-life policy wish to preserve life…somehow, you’ve gotten it twisted around, like everything else, that saving lives somehow kills tons of people.

            We’re done here too….you’re too full of sh!t for me to continue discussing this, long after you’ve been proven wrong.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            §
            “So, before I finish
            for good with you, you’ve got like 3 fallacies including the Argumentum Ad
            Hitlerum in there. Impressive.”

            You obviously don’t know what a fallacy is.

            note____ When I say “you” I am speaking of all pro lifers____

            This is not a personal attack.

            “The
            entire discussion you have…did you take something or get drunk? Seriously.”

            That is called an ad hominem attack, it is a fallacy.

            “You
            keep saying fetus’ and babies. Those two groups. Is it then the pro-life
            positions’ fault that adults starve to death to?”

            Yes it is. You have a choice, you may save a born person from starving to death
            or you may let it starve and save a fetus instead.

            “How about elderly people? We clearly
            aren’t choosing babies to starve, or die…and certainly not fetus’ of any
            kind. How you arrive at that is about as empty headed as the rest of the
            discussion you hammered out earlier.”

            You have a choice, you may save a fetus that is wanted, a born baby, a child or
            an adult or you may let them die and save a fetus instead. You of course have
            no obligation to save anyone, but you do claim to be pro life, so I would
            expect that you would not murder one to save another. But you do, you kill born
            life to save fetuses.

            “You’re
            claiming that pro lifers are choosing death for babies….that’s already
            patently false, simply by giving someone the pro-life label. They can’t be for
            saving babies AND killing babies at the same time. Bad rhetoric at best,
            absolute fallacy on its face.”

            The scientific fact is that they have a choice, they may save babies or kill
            them and save fetuses. You choose to kill born babies. (By “you” I mean all pro
            lifers.)

            (Using
            your poverty.com subset, those are deaths
            from starvation…certainly not things we choose to let people die from.)

            You have a choice to save them or let them die. You choose to let them die.

            “ Your entire case makes it sound like there’s a group sitting somewhere who is
            making a list of “People We’re Going To Let Die Today.” Not only is
            that completely ignorant and almost not worth mentioning, but it’s not what
            you’re talking about.”

            I have a list of the people you let die. You let born people die from every
            cause, not just poverty.

            “You
            keep saying fetus’ and babies. Those two groups. If you’re keeping it there
            within those confines, you’re assessments are incorrect. If you expand that to
            everyone else, you’re still incorrect. You’re also mind-numbingly incorrect
            about saying we “choose” to let them die.”

            You have a choice, I have pointed out your choice and you have made that choice
            and excuses to continue to murder. That in my book is choosing to let babies
            die.

            “ Does that mean that liberals and pro-choicers are also letting them die, and
            therefore are no better if not worse because they’re killing them before AND
            after they’re born?”

            You are the one I am talking about. I am saving born life and people that do
            not choose to save fetuses have no duty to save them. Only pro lifers choose to
            let babies die to save fetuses. And they have a duty to save life because they
            claim to save life.

            “You
            can’t defend that position. It’s just not possible.”

            I is a fact that others have no duty to save fetuses or babies, they do not
            have an obligation. You do have an obligation, because you claim to save life
            as you murder one to save another.

            “I
            mean, seriously…you have above:”

            No your strawman arguments are worthless.

            <<>>>

            I understand that you want to distance yourself from Hitler, but you can’t.
            Hitler was pro life, you are pro life. You both murder born people and save
            fetuses.

            “Hitler,
            since you mentioned it, was an artist. Lots of liberals are artists. That
            doesn’t equate them, but you’ve used a fallacy to try and equate one group of
            people to Hitler, when they are not, and never have been, the same. More
            rhetoric, done poorly.?

            Hitler was an artist and so are pro lifers and pro choice people. So there is
            no connection. However only you and Hitler murder born people and save fetuses.
            So you are alike.

            “The
            other statement about PP and Hitler….that’s just plain effing stupid. It’s
            not even worth the retort to point out how wrong that is…it speaks for
            itself.”

            You can continue to try to distance yourself from Hitler, but you are clearly
            of like mind. You both claim to save life and are actually murderers.

            “Saving
            a fetus, or a baby, doesn’t equal the death of another.”

            No one ever said it does. You are making a strawman argument and it has failed.

            “ You’ve never, once, explained how that screwed up reasoning works….mainly,
            because it just doesnt.”

            Of course it doesn’t you made it up.

            “At
            the end…you’re trying to make pro-life = pro-death.”

            No, I am asking you to make a different choice. I am asking you to save
            innocent babies, will you do that?

            “ It’s not true, catagoricly or factually…and yet you keep saying it over and
            over. It’s like a broken record.”

            It is a scientific fact that you murder innocent children in an effort to save
            a fetus that may not even be human. If you keep denying it I will keep proving
            you are wrong, you in fact let born babies die to save fetuses.

            “ People who support any type of pro-life policy wish to preserve
            life…somehow, you’ve gotten it twisted around, like everything else, that
            saving lives somehow kills tons of people. “

            The explain how you are not murdering born babies. How are you saving all the
            born life on Earth? Just answer that question and you will be right and I will
            be wrong. But if you don’t save everyone, then you are letting them die to save
            a fetus.

            “We’re
            done here too….you’re too full of sh!t for me to continue discussing this,
            long after you’ve been proven wrong”

            I have asked you to defend yourself and you can’t. Until you answer my question
            you are proved to be a murderer of born babies.

          • MarcusFenix

            I saw you replied, but I just skipped to the bottom because you keep saying the same things over and over, so there’s no real sense in reading pages and pages of it for no other purpose than eye strain.

            As a point of mention…for some reason, I spent some time looking for Crawford online. I thought I saw something on Amazon, but it was a book for his insanity, and wasn’t worth a read. Doesn’t look very popular either, wonder why? I went back to check again, and the link for it was gone as well…so there’s that. But aside from that, there’s nothing else about him. If he’s this big inventor…it’s funny how there’s nothing pointing to his work.

            A second point of mention…this article might be worth a read. It’s from Alex Barezow, an actual scientist with a Ph.D (which I highly doubt you or Crawford have), someone who actually -does- have credentials in a related field and knows what he’s talking about. He does say something I find interesting, and worth the share:

            “Perhaps unwittingly, Mr. Saletan has demonstrated that science is not in a position to solve the abortion debate. ”

            Whoops? Here’s the article: http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/06/27/a_science-based_abortion_policy_is_impossible_106577.html

            So let’s start again. Please try to keep up, and use less than 2 pages. Seeing the same sentence 15 times in a post doesn’t really justify your position, it just makes it dull.

            I asked you, the very first time, to define how it is that being pro life means you kill babies (and all of the accompanying garbled mess you came up with), and yet you couldn’t articulate how that worked in any way, shape or form. You didn’t.

            I likewise tried to get you to explain how killing a baby meant saving a fetus, and vice versa. You didn’t do that either. How do you expect an answer to questions you pose, when you neither can answer mine, nor even frame yours in a readable context?

            I can see at the bottom, that you’re asking me to defend myself…but you’re doing so after erroneously attributing things to me, you can’t actually answer my questions directly and demand that I answer your insanely phrased nonsense, and then here say “Until you can answer my question, you are proved to be a murderer of born babies”.

            What does murdering babies, murdering fetus’, or any of the psuedo-scientific laws you’ve made up in your basement lab have anything to do with “Saving 7 Billion people”.

            When you can answer the very first things we started off with, and not spin it into some asinine diatribe that sounds spiffy and means nothing….we can actually talk. But you’re not interested in a rational discussion. Your interested in spin and rhetoric, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. If you want questions answered, maybe firing back questions that make no sense *as* supposed answers isn’t working for you. Try actually participating in a discussion, rather than purposely being obtuse.

            Of course, you’ll spin this into me either agreeing with you, which I’ve never done…or you’ll just bounce it back. Either way, GL with that.

            BTW…I still can’t find a single thing this Crawford guy invented, other than terms for the laws of nature that were already in place.

            I’ll give you a free lesson though, since you’ve asked, in why those “laws” you cite are bogus. From the site you keep pimping:

            “The Law of Conception: Most conceptions end in abortion.”

            Up front..you connect this law to it’s accompanying “theory”….a theory with no merit, no data, no science to support it, and nothing more than conjecture on the part of someone who isn’t a scientist, has no accreditation in any subject listed, and is just all nonsense without proof.

            There is no data which supports this “law”. The birth and death rates, as I cited previously, refute that statement outright. There wouldn’t be skyrocketing birth rates as there are, and the infant mortality rate would be through the roof, if that were the case.

            Secondarily, this fake “law” you put so much stock in states that:

            “The Theory of Conception states: Abortion is a natural and expected consequence of sex.”

            On it’s face, that’s factually false. If there is any expectation with unprotected sex, it’s that pregnancy occurs, not abortion. As mentioned before, since there’s no skyrocketing infant mortality rate in the 60% range or more, I’m not even sure you could repeat that line above there to someone and keep a straight face. It’s nonsensical and untrue by virtue of it’s own statement.

            How long do you wish to continue defending a position that, even by the way the sentence is structured, is patently false? Is it just that important to you, to bash your head against a verbal brick wall, in the hope that eventually someone, somewhere will just give up and agree?

            I don’t really like picking on the weak…but you keep coming back for more. I’m torn between just not responding, since you’re going to just say the same things again over and over anyway…or reply just because I have most of the day off and I just cant help but point out where you’re abjectly wrong.

            So which will it be? More masochistic behavior for you, or just a quiet acceptance that no one is buying into the theories of a crackpot that no one has ever heard of to date?

          • $24549613

            OMGSH this guy is insane.
            I could actually see members of the pro death camp distancing themselves from this kind of crazy.
            You’re responses are awesome, but I think they’re going over his head.
            Perhaps you shouldn’t waste your time anymore… he has a “truly dizzying intellect”. :-)

          • MarcusFenix

            Yeah, your entire post is pretty much my take.

            For some reason, it’s……it’s like watching a train wreck, or the now famous Miley Cyrus VMA performance, you know? It’s horrible, and makes you sad, maybe even die a little inside because of how vapid or ignorant it is….but you just can’t avert your eyes. You keep looking….all the while becoming more horrified at things playing out. You continue to be mortified, but want to get closer for a better view.

            Thank you for the compliment, btw. Much appreciated. :)

          • $24549613

            You’re most welcome.

            You’re right. What is it about human nature that propels us to continue to repeatedly watch these train wrecks? Why can we not avert our eyes? I’m just as guilty as the next person.

            oh…and
            Don’t get me started on Miley and the horrible role models littles girls have nowadays…. just don’t… :-)

          • MarcusFenix

            I could see your last post, and tried to reply….but it disappeared and said it wasn’t there anymore….so, here that is for you, under this heading instead.

            ————————————————————————-
            *chuckle* Yeah…let’s not go down the VMA road, it’s already gotten
            enough traction. To answer your question…my personal opinion is that
            inside, we’re glad it’s just not us. We watch, because it’s horrible
            and not happening to us at the moment. There’s more to it than that,
            which would take about as much space to type as what Ricky here has been
            doing…but that’s how I feel about it. We watch, because on some
            level I think we’re glad it’s not us in the wreckage.

            The thing
            about his comments are that, as i put in that last post for him, I
            didn’t even have to read it to reply. I went back after I replied and
            skimmed it enough to see that I’d been spot on…it was just the same
            reciting of nonsense from the other 10+ pages of text he’s put out
            there.

            His central theme is saying that saving a fetus kills a
            baby, or the inverse of that statement….but then directly links that
            fact to things like his poverty.org site, which has nothing to do
            specifically with fetal death. He’s never really explained things
            clearly, in words that humans use in the same grouping. He somehow has
            managed to convince himself, through this Crawford fellow, that by being
            pro life and choosing to defend unborn children, that you’re somehow
            murdering them later. When I’ve pointed out that he’s wrong, and
            directly confronted his argument…well, you’ve seen his replies.

            I
            sent some of the prior texts above to a colleague of mine, asking him
            for his professional take on the conversation. I got an email back with
            one simple response. It read:

            “If you can find the phone number of the psych ward he escaped from, you definitely want to give um a call.”

            I
            figure…within the next day or so, he’ll respond. He’ll keep
            responding as long as the thread is open, because I genuinely believe
            his mindset is that if he says it enough, someone will just accept it.

          • $24549613

            sigh… yes.. now he’s addressing me. I just don’t have time for his insanity.

            I just read his reply to you.

            Good lord. He needs a life. And I have to start breakfast. The house is waking… Have a great day. Good luck with the crazy man. I’ll try to catch up late tonight (or maybe later in the week) when the kiddos and hubby are in bed. :-)

            Keep up the good fight.

          • MarcusFenix

            I’ll try…I’d just like to get a straight answer from him….that would at least be a start.

            As an exercise, pull up one of his long winded retorts to me. Then go to Wikipedia, and do a search for “list of logical fallacies”. Better yet, here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies

            Now…go through his post, and play the “How many fallacies can you see?” game. It’s like Where’s Waldo, only with bullcrap and lies from this guy.

            Excluding his “Reductio ad Hitlerum” from before…I picked out over 20, in one post. They’re pretty consistent all the way through, but…see if you can find them. 😉 It’s like there’s a barrel, and there are fish in it…..

            If it helps, you can follow me on here. I don’t have this attached to my personal twitter or facebook, for business reasons, but you’re welcome to contact me here, or on the email that’s on my bio page when you click on my avatar.

            Cheers, and peace to you. :)

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Of course you are lying, there are no fallacies. If you think you have even one, post it and I will prove you are wrong.

          • MarcusFenix

            Your entire posts are nothing but fallacies. By the dozens.

            That’s not lies, or misdirection. It’s pure fact. You can’t even answer a simple question, much less prove anything.

            Back to the basement lab with you, Dexter.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            If there were a fallacy then you would post it. But you can’t because there are no fallacies.

          • MarcusFenix

            Saw this before I finish up….I have. I’ve listed them directly. Do you need a flip chart or something? I mean, it’s not like they’re hard to spot. If you had even a modicum of the intellect you claim, it wouldn’t be hard to pick them out. You’re intentionally ignoring them.

            How about in posts where they are specifically labeled for you? Is that just another lie….or did you just not bother to read it?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Every post you have made has been proved to be insufficient. You have lost all points. If you think you have made even one valid point then post it here and I will show you were your flaw is.
            Your whole line of argument is based upon the fallacy of ad hominem accusation and is therefore invalid.
            Perhaps you can come up with something that is on point and relevant to the issue.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I have proved you cannot save both the fetus and the baby, so you must explain how you will save them both.
            I don’ think you can.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You have a choice, you may save an innocent born baby or you may let it die and save a fetus instead. Which do you choose to save?

          • $24549613

            both.
            Btw a fetus IS a baby.
            A fetus is a developing human being.
            At no point are we ever non-human.

            You make no sense.

            I can’t waste my time on you.

            I’m a mother of 3 beautiful children and a foster mother of 3 more beautiful children that are just starting to wake. I counsel women to keep their babies at a CPC at which I volunteer during the school year. (It happens to be the very same CPC that helped me finish college when I was faced with me unplanned pregnancy when I was unmarried)

            The kids and I (all 6) are going to go feed the homeless and visit the elderly in a nearby old folks home today.
            Full day!

            What are YOU doing to help your fellow man or woman?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            It is impossible to save both. So you are killing innocent babies. You need to stop.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I am trying to do the same things you are trying to do. You think you are saving life. And I am attempting to stop you from murdering innocent babies. The only thing that is different is that I am trying to save real born babies, children and adults and you are trying to save fetuses that may or may not be human or alive. I think that want I am doing is important. What you are doing is misguided.

            You just didn’t know you are murdering innocent life. But you do now, will you stop?

            You really need to read my site http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “Btw a fetus IS a baby. ”

            Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype one cannot tell if the product of conception is alive or human.

            “A fetus is a developing human being.”

            42 percent of conceptions are not human enough to live as a human.

            “At no point are we ever non-human”

            More conceptions are not human than live to be human at birth.70 percent of all conceptions die in the first trimester. .

          • $24549613

            Sigh…
            You’ve proven NOTHING.
            You’re not a source of authority.
            You don’t know what you’re talking about.
            You spout off a diatribe of fallacies then lie about it.
            You have nothing special to offer
            I do not have time to waste on people whose mental acumen amounts to that of a sloth (although I think I just insulted the sloth)

            Please do not bother anymore with your tripe. I will not be responding.
            While you’re on here blogging your heart out in your mother’s basement, my family and I are out there saving people lives and making a difference in the world, despite what your twisted “logic” would imply Good luck to you…

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I have proved that you have a choice to save born babies or to let them die and save a fetus instead. That is not being “pro life” that is killing born babies to save fetuses that you cannot prove are alive or human.
            I am a source of authority, I know more about abortion that anyone you know.
            There are no fallacies, if there were then I would not be here today. Every claim of a fallacy has been proved to be wrong and usually based upon a strawman argument.
            I am the leading expert on the Scientific Abortion Laws..
            You do not have to talk with me and we do not need to discuss anything. You came here and commented. I did not invite you.
            As long as pro lifers submit to the proposition that they murder innocent babies, then you don’t need to do a thing.

          • $24549613

            Oh yes… you are the leading expert on the Scientific Abortion Laws… of course you are… I’m married to Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny just hopped over for a visit too.. he brought god over too.

            There are names for self proclaimed experts such as yourself…

            pro-lifers will never submit to your “authority”

            NON SERVIAM

            I’m sure though… that if you repeat yourself enough times, someone will prescribe to the same kind of crazy that you are.

            But, I wonder if you’re this guy http://www.swinburne.edu.au/lss/staff/view.php?who=rcrawford how you have time to be on here for so long.

            good day

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “I saw you replied,
            but I just skipped to the bottom because you keep saying the same things over
            and over, so there’s no real sense in reading pages and pages of it for no
            other purpose than eye strain.”

            The reason you skipped
            is because you cannot answer my questions.

            “As a point of
            mention…for some reason, I spent some time looking for Crawford online. I
            thought I saw something on Amazon, but it was a book for his insanity, and
            wasn’t worth a read. Doesn’t look very popular either, wonder why? I went back
            to check again, and the link for it was gone as well…so there’s that. But
            aside from that, there’s nothing else about him. If he’s this big
            inventor…it’s funny how there’s nothing pointing to his work. “

            I have three U.S. Patents, if you will send me $1000.00 dollars cash I will
            give you more information. Or you can look me up through the Patent office for
            free.

            “A second point of
            mention…this article might be worth a read. It’s from Alex Barezow, an actual
            scientist with a Ph.D (which I highly doubt you or Crawford have), someone who
            actually -does- have credentials in a related field and knows what he’s talking
            about. He does say something I find interesting, and worth the share:”Perhaps
            unwittingly, Mr. Saletan has demonstrated that science is not in a position to
            solve the abortion debate. “Whoops? Here’s the article: http://www.realclearscience.co…”

            Thanks for the link, I read it some time ago.

            “So let’s start again.
            Please try to keep up, and use less than 2 pages. Seeing the same sentence 15
            times in a post doesn’t really justify your position, it just makes it dull. I
            asked you, the very first time, to define how it is that being pro life means
            you kill babies (and all of the accompanying garbled mess you came up with),
            and yet you couldn’t articulate how that worked in any way, shape or form. You
            didn’t.”

            I explained it to you in great detail. Most people have been able to understand
            what I have written and either make cogent arguments or accept what I say.

            Get someone to help you with this.

            Pro Lifers must kill born babies to save fetuses.

            There are 7 billion people on Earth, all are dying. In fact they are dying at
            the rate of 1.8 each second. There are more people dying than you can save. So
            you must choose whom to save. You may choose to save a fetus or you may choose
            to save a baby. It is impossible to save both, because if you attempt to save a
            fetus and spend 1 second saving a fetus, 1.8 born babies will die.

            I don’t know if I can make it more simple than that. If you still don’t
            understand and you cannot understand when your friends attempt to explain it to
            you, then just ask and I will try again.

            “I likewise tried to
            get you to explain how killing a baby meant saving a fetus, and vice versa. You
            didn’t do that either. How do you expect an answer to questions you pose, when
            you neither can answer mine, nor even frame yours in a readable context?”

            I never said that killing a baby saves a fetus. That is a continuing problem
            for you. You have admitted here that you don’t read what I write. That may be
            the reason you fail to understand. I have explained the difference before, but lets
            do it again. I said tthat you have a choice of whom to save. I did not say that
            killing a fetus saves a baby. Do you understand the difference here. In one
            situation the act of killing saves a life. In the other situation the saving of
            a life saves a life. The two are different. For example if there are only two
            living masses, a baby and a fetus and I tell you that killing a fetus will save
            a baby, that would be wrong. But if there are 7 billion people dying and you
            can save one or let it die, then that is true. The fact that you let born
            people die is what I point out. I ask you to save the born babies, I don’t ask
            you to kill a fetus.

            “I can see at the
            bottom, that you’re asking me to defend myself…but you’re doing so after
            erroneously attributing things to me, you can’t actually answer my questions
            directly and demand that I answer your insanely phrased nonsense, and then here
            say “Until you can answer my question, you are proved to be a murderer of
            born babies”.”

            I have asked you to save born babies, that is not too hard to understand. And
            you have failed to do that. If you say you can, then prove it by saving all the
            born life and then we can talk about saving fetuses.

            “What does murdering
            babies, murdering fetus’, or any of the psuedo-scientific laws you’ve made up
            in your basement lab have anything to do with “Saving 7 Billion
            people”.”

            It is based upon your statement that everyone dies. You said that, right?

            “When you can answer
            the very first things we started off with, and not spin it into some asinine
            diatribe that sounds spiffy and means nothing….we can actually talk. But
            you’re not interested in a rational discussion. Your interested in spin and
            rhetoric, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. If you want questions answered,
            maybe firing back questions that make no sense *as* supposed answers isn’t
            working for you. Try actually participating in a discussion, rather than
            purposely being obtuse.”

            I have simply asked you to save born babies and not kill them. You refuse and
            are making excuses. If you will help me save the babies then we can move
            forward and I will help you save the fetuses.

            “Of course, you’ll
            spin this into me either agreeing with you, which I’ve never done…or you’ll
            just bounce it back. Either way, GL with that.”

            You have a choice, I hope you will use that choice wisely and save babies and
            not kill them. Will you do that?

            “BTW…I still can’t
            find a single thing this Crawford guy invented, other than terms for the laws
            of nature that were already in place.”

            Look them up. Or you can send me a check. I suggest if you are going to look
            them up that you use my name and search the U.S. Patent office.

            ““I’ll give you a free
            lesson though, since you’ve asked, in why those “laws” you cite are
            bogus. From the site you keep pimping:”The Law of Conception: Most
            conceptions end in abortion.”Up front..you connect this law to it’s accompanying
            “theory”….a theory with no merit, no data, no science to support
            it, and nothing more than conjecture on the part of someone who isn’t a
            scientist, has no accreditation in any subject listed, and is just all nonsense
            without proof.”

            The data is all over the internet. Others have found it, look where they look.

            “There is no data
            which supports this “law”. The birth and death rates, as I cited
            previously, refute that statement outright. There wouldn’t be skyrocketing
            birth rates as there are, and the infant mortality rate would be through the
            roof, if that were the case.”

            If you read the citations on the site you will find the data.

            “Secondarily, this
            fake “law” you put so much stock in states that:”

            That is simply an ad hominem attack and is of no value. If you have something
            to say, say it.

            “”The Theory of
            Conception states: Abortion is a natural and expected consequence of sex.”

            On it’s face, that’s
            factually false. If there is any expectation with unprotected sex, it’s that
            pregnancy occurs, not abortion. As mentioned before, since there’s no
            skyrocketing infant mortality rate in the 60% range or more, I’m not even sure
            you could repeat that line above there to someone and keep a straight face.
            It’s nonsensical and untrue by virtue of it’s own statement. “

            If you have a question, then put it in the form of a question. Until then you
            might want to read the citations that are with the page. You will find that
            most conceptions die, they do not become pregnancies.

            “How long do you wish
            to continue defending a position that, even by the way the sentence is
            structured, is patently false? Is it just that important to you, to bash your
            head against a verbal brick wall, in the hope that eventually someone,
            somewhere will just give up and agree?”

            You have already admitted you don’t read what I have posted so your opinion of
            what is or is not a law or theory is invalid. If you wish to discuss the laws,
            then read the citations. Then we can talk. Right now you are wasting time.

            I suggest you ask a question? And read the citation.

            “I don’t really like
            picking on the weak…but you keep coming back for more. I’m torn between just
            not responding, since you’re going to just say the same things again over and
            over anyway…or reply just because I have most of the day off and I just cant
            help but point out where you’re abjectly wrong.”

            You have not read what I have written and have not read the citations. So until
            you do, your comments are worthless. Lets by all means have a discussion, after
            you have read and understand what is written.

            “So which will it be?
            More masochistic behavior for you, or just a quiet acceptance that no one is
            buying into the theories of a crackpot that no one has ever heard of to date?”

            You have completely wasted my time as well as the time of anyone reading. I
            suggest that before you continue to converse, you read my site and the
            citations there. Until then you will continue to ask questions that make no
            sense.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    There are 7 billion people on earth, they are all dying. In fact they are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. The fact is that there are more people dying than can be saved. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com
    Pro lifers have a choice, they may save those born babies or they may let them die and save a fetus instead. If they spend one second attempting to save a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born babies will die. The choice to save a fetus is therefore not a choice to save life, but a choice to let a born baby die in an effort to save a fetus.
    And the fetus they try to save may or may not be human or alive. Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype it is impossible to tell if the product of conception is alive, human or will live to birth. Therefore when pro lifers let born babies die they cannot be certain that the fetus they are trying to save is even human or alive.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    This has been one of the better sites for me this week. So far pro lifers have not answered the question of whom they murder, the baby or the fetus. They have made wild accusations of not having 17 questions answered, but have not produced one example of an unanswered question. They have claimed to have proof of a whole list of fallacies, but cannot post even one. And I asked them to prove they can save both a fetus and 7 billion born people, which they said they could do, but they offer no proof.
    I love days like this.
    ====

    Pro lifer, 7 billion people are on earth, all are dying. They are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. There are more dying than you can save. Therefore you have a choice, you may save a born person that will die, or you can save a fetus. If you spend one second saving a fetus, then 1.8 born babies will die. Which do you save?

    • MarcusFenix

      People have…you just reject the answer, name yourself as the authority upon which your answer rest, and then say everyone else is wrong. See, watch this…

      You’re an insane, lying piece of human garbage. As a person who has been online and observed this for quite some time, I am now an expert on who is insane, who is lying, and who are pieces of garbage. Therefore, I must be correct and nothing you say can change that. My scientific proof is that because I’ve said it, and because I stated I’m the observer, that it must be irrefutably correct.

      Fallacies have been posted. Repeatedly. IF you’d like, I’ll just make one huge list of them…or you could just read it from the posts above. That would be easier than say…looking up your nonexistent patents? Seems an even trade…the list of things you invented, for the list of fallacies.

      Otherwise, you’re just a schmuck with a slightly better vocabulary than the average liberal, but like them, understand nothing that comes out of your mouth.

      Which to me, stil makes you an insane, lying piece of human garbage. But hey, #science.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        Lets make a wager, I will bet you ten thousand dollars or any sum you suggest, that I have three U.S. patents. Will you accept that wager?
        It is not my fault that you cannot use the patent system to locate a patent.
        Now your ad hominem fallacies are just childish and if you want to continue to practice them, that is your option.
        Now answer my question. You have a choice, there are 1.8 innocent born babies dying each second, you may choose to save one or let it die and save a fetus instead. Which do you murder, the baby or the fetus?

        Please answer my question.

        —-
        Please copy and paste your list of fallacies along with my answers.

        • MarcusFenix

          Since I’ve got a second before i leave…

          Why wager? I went to the patent site, typed in the name of the patent holder, and it came back with nothing. It’s not complicated. It just wasn’t there, under “Richard Crawford”. Did you place it under your real name? Someone elses? I’d wager for it’s own sake you don’t have any. If i’m wrong, then prove it. Link the patent numbers and items. It’s that simple. Are you 10 years old or something? It’s not hard for you to just spit out what it is. If you’ve got something, then you’ve proven me wrong. If you don’t….well, then that’ll bear itself out. Isn’t it amazing you call me childish, then play childrens games? Show some patent numbers, a link….anything. You win, if you do and it’s actually *you*. See how easy that is? For an inventor, you sure aren’t that bright at coming up with ideas like that.

          Your question is based on ignorant, baseless, unfounded ideas. That massive post i dropped earlier covered it. With the fallacies, to boot. And I didn’t even bother listing them all….there were 20 in just that one previous post. It’s like you need me to hold your hand or something. Your version of “save” is not what “Saving” means. You stick a bunch of words together that sound intelligent and it’s devoid of any real logic. It’s not even common sense, when you ask your question. I reply “save them both?” You said that’s not possible. That is a fallacy. Do you need to be told which one, or can you just surmise on your own which it is? There are more choices that you offer, yet you exclude because you just dont like them. Can you name which fallacy creates only a limited number of choices when there are more? I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “False” and ends with “Dilemma”. Maybe you can figure the rest from there.

          The entirety of postings you’ve done is based on false logical premises, using yourself as the authority figure, claiming there are only 2 choices to something I’ve given you at least 3, using circular logic, using your own concept as explanation of the concept without having defined the terms properly in their own right, you’ve denied the antecedent in your argument, you’ve constantly shifted the burden of proof in your arguments where if you dont agree we’ve made a point, you claim your argument must be true, you’ve “moved the goalpost” multiple times, participated in contextomy, provided multiple instances of violating the fact-value relationship, used Onus Probandi, mutlitudes of strawman arguments, red herrings in relations to your stats about one baby or fetus, then using 7 billion other people to justify a single event, you’ve falsely claimed “everyone agrees with you” when it has in fact not occured, used the Reductio Ad Hitlorum fallacy several times, and used the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in conjunction with lying about statitsics about Rowe v. Wade.

          Do you need me to spell each one out for you, individually, or are able to piece it together from here? We could spend all day repasting everything you’ve said. Every single one of those items in the above paragraph is a fallacy, either by logos or ethos, and either falls into the formal fallacy or informal range. Look at that list. Seriously. that’s something I could pull from any one of your long winded but say nothing posts. It’s not rocket surgury, you know? But keep saying that we’re all liars, keep saying we’re all just making this up.

          K, now I actually have to go….unless you can invent and patent a way for me to be in two places at once. You can add it to the others you have…and since you’re claiming the impossible in your posts and asking impossible questions, I’ll wait to see what you come up with invention wise.

          Otherwise, stop wasting your time, and everyone elses, asking questions to which the only answer you’ll ever accept is your own. There is no valid answer to a question which is a false premise and (lets be really honest here) complete bullsh!t to start with.

          Call this ad hominem, but I’ll say it again. You’re an insane, lying piece of human garbage. You sully the word “logic” with everything you type.

          So with my last post for the next week or so…go eff yourself. And have a nice day.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Look, you have a major problem and it is based in your inability to read. First Check what my name is, find out my age, see when you might think I would have filed a patent considering my age, do a background search on where I lived at my various ages and then search under my name.
            It is really that simple. Do it or pay me and I will give you what you want.
            Or make the wager.
            Let me give you a hint, the patents can’t be found in the online database. You will have to go to a patent library. There are a number throughout the U.S.

            Here is a hint. In the future don’t make ad hominem attacks on someone you want to ask a favor of. I could care less if you find my patents.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            §
            “Your question is
            based on ignorant, baseless, unfounded ideas.”

            My question is based upon scientific fact. It is impossible for you to save a fetus
            without allowing a born baby to die.

            “ That massive post i dropped earlier covered it. With the fallacies, to boot.”

            The problem you failed to read what I posted before your “massive post”, so you
            wasted your time. Go back and read what I wrote.

            “ And I didn’t even bother listing them all….there were 20 in just that one
            previous post.”

            You are lying again as proved by the fact that every post you have made is
            disproved.

            “ It’s like you need me to hold your hand or something.”

            Your ad hominem attacks are childish.

            “ Your version of “save” is not what “Saving” means.”

            I use the dictionary meaning of “saving”.

            “ You stick a bunch of words together that sound intelligent and it’s devoid of
            any real logic.”

            You are wrong.

            “ It’s not even common sense, when you ask your question. I reply “save
            them both?” You said that’s not possible. “

            There are 7 billion people dying on Earth. Explain how you will save them all
            and a fetus as well. If you let one die, then you have not saved them all. If
            you choose to save a fetus, which is different that a born person, then a born
            person dies. The problem is based upon your inability to understand simple
            concepts. I have suggested you get someone you trust to explain it to you. Will
            you do that?

            “That is a fallacy.”

            It is not a fallacy. It is your inability to understand. It is a flaw you
            possess.

            “ Do you need to be told which one, or can you just surmise on your own which
            it is?”

            Something is not a fallacy just because you don’t have the skills to
            understand.

            “ There are more choices that you offer, yet you exclude because you just don’t
            like them.”

            There are no more choices when you are speaking of life and death. Something is
            either alive or dead.

            “ Can you name which fallacy creates only a limited number of choices when
            there are more? I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “False” and ends
            with “Dilemma”. Maybe you can figure the rest from there.”

            There is no false dilemma, unless you can tell me a human state other than
            alive or dead.

            “The
            entirety of postings you’ve done is based on false logical premises, using
            yourself as the authority figure, claiming there are only 2 choices to
            something I’ve given you at least 3”

            There are not three choices, one is either alive or dead.

            “ using circular logic,”

            There is no circular logic.

            “ using your own concept as explanation of the concept without having defined
            the terms properly in their own right,”

            That has not been done.

            “you’ve denied the antecedent in your
            argument,”

            I have not.

            “ you’ve constantly shifted the burden of proof in your arguments where if you
            dont agree we’ve made a point, you claim your argument must be true,”

            You have never made a valid point.

            “ you’ve “moved the goalpost” multiple times,”

            I have never moved the goalpost.

            “ participated in contextomy, provided multiple instances of violating the
            fact-value relationship,”

            That is untrue.

            “ used Onus Probandi, mutlitudes of strawman arguments, red herrings in
            relations to your stats about one baby or fetus,”

            That is a lie.

            “ then using 7 billion other people to justify a single event,”

            That is a lie.

            “ you’ve falsely claimed “everyone agrees with you” when it has in
            fact not occured,”

            That is a lie.

            “ used the Reductio Ad Hitlorum fallacy several times”

            It is only a fallacy if it is untrue. Hitler was a pro lifer. Just like you.

            ,”and used the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in conjunction with lying about
            statitsics about Rowe v. Wade.”

            That is untrue.

            “Do
            you need me to spell each one out for you, individually, or are able to piece
            it together from here?”

            Yes have a try at any one. Your don’t understand that just because you don’t have
            the mental ability to understand what you are reading, it does not make
            something a fallacy. This is entirely either an IQ problem or a total lie.
            Which is it?

            “ We could spend all day repasting everything you’ve said.”

            You are lying, I have never made a single fallacy. I will gladly prove you
            wrong.

            “ Every single one of those items in the above paragraph is a fallacy, either
            by logos or ethos, and either falls into the formal fallacy or informal range.
            Look at that list.”

            I hear a lot of talk, yet no proof. If you think there is a fallacy, then post
            it. But your list above is worthless.

            “ Seriously. that’s something I could pull from any one of your long winded but
            say nothing posts. It’s not rocket surgury, you know? But keep saying that
            we’re all liars, keep saying we’re all just making this up.”

            You have an opportunity here to prove what you say. I would be willing to bet
            you will never answer, why, because it is all based upon your inability to read
            and your inability to reason.

            “K,
            now I actually have to go….unless you can invent and patent a way for me to
            be in two places at once. You can add it to the others you have…and since
            you’re claiming the impossible in your posts and asking impossible questions,
            I’ll wait to see what you come up with invention wise.”

            That is another useless ad hominem.

            “Otherwise,
            stop wasting your time, and everyone elses,”

            It is not a waste of my time to let you show your inability to reason and understand.
            It strengthens my position and gives me pleasure.

            “ asking questions to which the only answer you’ll ever accept is your own.
            There is no valid answer to a question which is a false premise and (lets be
            really honest here) complete bullsh!t to start with.”

            I have a long history of changing my mind when I am proved wrong by the facts.
            I was pro life for over 30 years and did not change until the proof was overwhelming
            that pro lifers do not save life.

            “Call
            this ad hominem, but I’ll say it again. You’re an insane, lying piece of human
            garbage. You sully the word “logic” with everything you type.”

            Your use of ad hominem attacks is childish. You will always lose when you do
            such things.

            “So
            with my last post for the next week or so…go eff yourself. And have a nice
            day”

            You lost and left.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    Admin, please see why my answers are being deleted. I have posted an answer several times and when I come back to view it, it is gone. What is the deal?

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    I have noticed that one of the main tools pro lifers,( like Marcusfinix) use is the construction of “Straw Men” to fight against the truth. This thread has a number of commenters that take information from one section of a post, use it out of context to build a strawman argument. Then they defeat the straw man and claim to have made a valid point. If a person is going to win an argument with me it will not be with straw men. For example one poster has made a number of claims about fallacies and to support his claims he has constructed strawman arguments. I have exposed his arguments and will continue to do so. So if anyone on this site is confused by a posting by a pro lifer, then by all means let me know. As of this date, that pro lifer has never made a point that is not based upon a straw man.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    Admin, I just posted answers to questions posed to me. Now they have been removed. Several hours were expended making the posts. Where are they?

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    Admin, why are you removing my answers?