Ironically, Hitchens was actually pro-life. In his biography, a man close to him talked about how both his older and younger brother was aborted. This was chilling to hitchens, because he realized he just barely escaped the knife. If not for his personal skin in the the game, though, who knows if he would have been pro-life.

The Left likes to push a narrative that abortion rates are due to small government not providing support to women.

Yet the countries with high abortion rates have plenty of support for mothers.

That narrative is very incomplete.

Maybe the morality of recognizing that taking the life of a child is what brings a parent to bring about a new life, instead of aborting a child.

The countries with the highest abortion rates were under Leftist regimes that tried to take God away.

If a woman is anorexic, should she be allowed to try for her dream of reaching a single digit weight or should medical staff intervene and force-feed her?

And I'm not making up the first part, look:

https://www.amazon.com/Stick-Figure-Diary-Former-Self/dp/0425178900

> fetus before 24 weeks is probably unable to function without direct connection to the mother, as it has no heart, no lungs, no brain, etc

Hmm...

Week 5: Your baby's heart and a primitive circulatory system will form in the middle layer of cells — the mesoderm.

Week 6: The heart and other organs also are starting to form.

Week 7: Seven weeks into your pregnancy, or five weeks after conception, your baby's brain and face are growing.

Week 17: His or her heart is pumping about 100 pints of blood each day.

Black children are not aborted in larger numbers than white ones on a weight of numbers. In 2014, 358,810 white children were aborted as opposed to 255,630 black ones. Anyone who looks at just the raw numbers, this is the data. Whoever said 60% badly misread something somewhere along the line (assuming they weren’t just making it up entirely).

Black children are aborted at much, much higher percentages as a figure of population than those of any other race. Abortions per thousand women in 2014 were at 27.1 for black women. The next highest figure was 18.1 among Hispanic women. Which, measured over thousands, is a pretty dramatic drop. This despite the United States population in general being 13.4% black. Source for numbers on abortions.. Source for US population.

Now you’ve framed in your post that these things are blamed on women seeking abortions, specifically black ones. And also that only people who aren’t black would be alarmed at these figures, as if it were a way to find fault. Neither of those things are true, except in the cases of people who are racist anyway. Or misogynist. Or both. People can argue about why these numbers are this way—and you brought up a number of things that are factors—all day long . But regardless of the reasons, no thinking person would look at this as anything but tragic. It certainly isn’t a way to judge or score points.

It’s a biological fact that a new individual’s life begins at conception. It’s the first phase of life:

> The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

> Human development is the process of growing to maturity. In biological terms, this entails growth from a one-celled zygote to an adult human being.

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Human_development_(biology).html

Sperm are living cells, but they are not a phase of an individual person’s development. You were once an embryo, a fetus, then an infant, etc. You were never a sperm.

Are we talking about the same Margaret Sanger who called abortion "the killing of children" and said "we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way — no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun"?

Ok, I read through the parts of the study (link here, provided by HuffPo) claiming the increase in teen abortion.

First off, the headline of the article is pretty misleading since a 3% increase isn't really a "surge". Second, the overall abortion rate in Texas decreased during the 2011-2013 period, so saying that defunding PP increases abortions is misleading since abortion overall did not increase in Texas (the article even notes that Texas abortion rates decreased from 2014-16).

In the study, I noticed that in Figure 7, the authors claim that teen abortion rates in TX counties with at least one public family planning clinic increased from 2012-13, but then decreased in 2014. So this doesn't appear to be some kind of sustained increase in the teen abortion rate. Even if defunding PP caused a small increase in abortion rates, that trend only lasted about a year.

Figure 8 compares teen abortion rates in Texas to a "Synthetic Texas" which the authors use teen abortion trends in similar states and compare these to Texas teen abortion rates, and find that Texas teen abortion rates increased compared to what was expected. I'm not a statistics expert so I can't guess if that method is correct or not. But again, going by Figure 7, it appears the increase in teen abortion rates reversed in 2014. So this likely isn't a long term increase.

Also, just FYI, I used data from the CDC and population data from Census to compare teen abortion rates in Texas from 2011-2013. I found that the teen abortion rate in 2011 was 8.3 and in 2013 was 7.6, which is an 8% decrease. I don't know why exactly the authors found a different result. They say they used the CDC reports and SEER population data. Maybe SEER data is different from Census data or they used different data.

https://sites.google.com/site/roeflip/

I'd point them to this website (specifically point 2 in this instance). It is a great resource for secular arguments against abortion, and since the creators and the group itself is atheist, it would work well to discuss the issue with other atheists. It's a shame, but the point of a religious person, even if identical to an atheist's, may be discounted.

http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/ is the source. Scroll down and you will see the following,

"According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day."

Sure, here is the book I didn't think you wanted to tell kids about that. I was just commenting on why these books are made in the first place aimed at young children. I just find it kind of odd and sometimes frightening.

There are books that talk about topics and situations that are relevant and age appropriate when done correctly (think death, having two mommies or daddies, skin color, consent) I just find it really scary when we start introducing kids to stuff like abortion, rape, the end of the world, etc etc.

My first book that touched on abortion was in a 6th grade classroom. According to goodreads the baby in the story was put up for adoption but that first page really left a mark on me and I was crying in the classroom. I don't even remember where I had even heard of abortion at that age. I'm not exactly sure how or when to touch these topics. It just boggles my mind why these books are being created for people that young.

This is a decent argument:

> if you have your gun pointed at a shadow and cannot tell if it is your friend or a deer, you do not shoot. because the possibility that it is your friend is not worth risking the shot on.

Two things to note here:

• The point of the analogy is that we refrain from actions where it’s controversial whether it’ll cause a murder. You don’t need to argue that philosophy in general in subjective.

• This argument is most effective against people who genuinely don’t know if abortion kills an innocent human. But many pro-choicers are already set on the belief that it doesn’t. So this shouldn’t be your main argument. I suggest reading the book Persuasive Pro-life by Trent Horn. He gives a lot of other great arguments to use, and the kindle version is only $6. Definitely worth it.

And if you’re a Christian, then you should believe that there’s objective aspects to both morality and philosophy. So abandon the “philosophy is subjective” talking point, it’s problematic for many reasons and doesn’t align with your worldview.

--I'd grieve if my friend died more than if someone else's fetus died, yes, probably. I'd also grieve if my friend died more than if a stranger the exact same age died. I'd also grieve if my own fetus died more than if someone else's fetus died. I'd also grieve if my fetus died more than if a born child I'd never met somewhere across the world died. What does any of that have to do with anything? Other humans' worth is not based on my personal feelings about each one of them.

--If the fetus can't live outside the womb, yes, of course it's still killing. When a human is alive, and then you do X thing to it that makes it die, you have killed it.

--Is there a rule I don't know about that we can either worry about prenatal humans or born humans, but we aren't allowed to care about both? Why do you assume everyone who says "Hey, we shouldn't kill humans prenatally" doesn't care if born humans die? This is one of the most common, ill-informed, baseless accusations, I can't get over how many people buy it.

Did you know practicing Christians are 50% more likely to foster and twice as likely to adopt as the average American? Did you know Republicans are more likely to contribute both time and money to charitable causes than Democrats are? Both of those demographics correlate to being pro-life. If anything statistics suggest the groups most likely to be pro-life are also most likely to personally do the most for born children struggling.

Your point about veganism was silly, yes, and so are the points you wrote just now. C'mon.

Because my authorities demonstrate that fertilization is only an interim step in reproduction. It isn't the final step. Thus, although a new and living human organism exists at fertilization, reproduction remains ongoing and incomplete. It is thus incorrect to say that at fertilization, "reproduction has already taken place."

Since you clearly seem open minded, I suggest reading this book of a woman who survived an abortion in which her twin was killed. She clearly did not want to die, and abortion was the wrong choice.

Survivor: An Abortion Survivor's Surprising Story of Choosing Forgiveness and Finding Redemption by Claire Culwell

Life is pain highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

<em>The Sexual State</em> by Jennifer Roback Morse PhD

> Should I make the assignment about an avid pro-life person? If so, who?

Do it about Margaret “We Want to Exterminate the Negro Population.” Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood.

Read War Against the Weak.

The crux of her argument was that since America could no longer enslave the inferior black people (she believed that they were incapable of taking care of themselves, and, slavery was for their own good) that the american black population should be genocided through attrition by sterilizing the women and men and aborting the babies of women who did get pregnant.

She would be massively proud of the job planned parenthood did in the 50-years of Roe, fortunately the piece of shit died before Roe vs Wade, sadly she lived almost 90 years and pervasively infected her racist ideology into progressive politics.

C.S. Lewis was either a twentieth-century prophet, or he was an intelligent man who could read the signs of the times. As a charismatic Christian, I'm open to either option. 😉

Seriously, though, The Abolition of Man should be required reading for anyone who wants to think about thinking. It explains how the intellectual and societal foundations were built to give us... what we have today. Lewis saw the birth pains of our current insanity.

It's even short! https://www.amazon.com/Abolition-Man-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652942

I really like this book which shared stories of women in these situations. https://www.amazon.com/Victims-Victors-Pregnancies-Abortions-Resulting/dp/0964895714#:~:text=all%202%20images-,Victims%20and%20Victors%3A%20Speaking%20Out%20About%20Their%20Pregnancies%2C%20Abortions%2C,Price

Here is more the empirical evidence of abortion having worse mental health outcomes for those who receive abortion. https://calumsblog.com/2022/02/10/abortion-and-mental-health/

UK laws allow abortion at any time for fetal anomaly—even if the anomaly is not life-threatening or painful. Something as minor as a cleft lip can be a death sentence for an unborn human in the UK.

There are many possible ways to be intersex. This includes but is not limited to mutations on the X and Y chromosomes. Unborn humans with these mutations detected are frequently killed for chromosomal abnormality. Prenatal testing companies already “screen out” intersex humans with these tests: https://www.preventiongenetics.com/testInfo?val=Disorders-of-Sex-Development-%28DSD%29-Panel

Structural abnormalities may also be detected by ultrasound.

Natural rate of occurrance for intersex people: “An estimated 98-99 percent of humans are either blond or brunette. Despite this, we have accepted—rather than denying, hiding, or attempting to eliminate—the existence of redheads, who, interestingly, make up the same percentage of the population as intersex people (1-2 percent).” — Hida Viloria and Dr. Maria Nieto in The Spectrum of Sex: The Science of Male, Female, and Intersex (page 24) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07ZPH6H4T/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=the+sex+spectrum&amp;qid=1588641521&amp;sr=8-1

Those are good questions. I would argue that there is no reason to view the fetus as being harmed by abortion, while I would argue that there is reason to view a newborn as being harmed if it is killed. (I am PC.) That's because the newborn has basic conscious awareness and emotions that the fetus doesn't have. Here are some more papers on the topic: The scientific literature states that there is a major difference between the newborn and the fetus: https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950

>"A first conclusion of this ongoing research is that the fetus in utero is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. In particular, it would not consciously experience nociceptive inputs as pain. Conversely, the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself touch, sense that their bodies are separate from the world, to express emotions, and to show signs of shared feelings."

Another researcher reports on whether the fetus ever really wakes up from sleep states in the womb: https://www.slideshare.net/SDRTL/the-importance-of-awareness-for-understanding-fetal-pain

> "This evaluation of the literature shows that there is no convincing evidence the fetus is ever awake; rather, it supports the concept that the fetus exists in a continuous sleep like state. Evidence suggests that unlike the newborn, noxious or nociceptive stimuli do not cause cortical arousal to an awake state as a defense response."

So there is a major difference between the newborn and even the late term fetus. The former is awake and experiences desire (the "positive emotion" towards her mother.) The latter has never experienced consciousness. For these reasons, the logical start point for personhood is at birth, and there is no reason to view the fetus as being "harmed" by abortion.

The term has been around for a long time. Here's a paper dating back to 1970, pre Roe v. Wade, using the term spontaneous abortion. Doctors usually say "miscarriage" to patients because abortion is associated with elective abortions.

> Biology is not a semantical issue.

Biology may or may not be a semantical issue, but biological terms carry meaning, and semantics is the study of meanings. So, surprising as it may be, biology does in fact involve semantics (as does every single topic that can be discussed using language).

> This is not a matter of opinion though. This is a matter of biology.

Cite a non-partisan, non-theistic, scientific biological authority from the web that holds that the reproductive process ends at conception.

> I mean that nothing about the entity in question (fetus/preborn child) changes at birth other than his/her location

If a pregnant woman stands up, walks down the hallway, and then stops, has anything changed for the fetus other than its location?

"Join the whole life committee team for an open discussion on ABC's documentary, "A Soul Of A Nation," tomorrow April 1st at 7pm EST.

Two things:

1. Please watch the clip of the documentary prior to the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m3I5nEgXEg

2. Here is the zoom link for you to join us: https://zoom.us/j/97906423216?pwd=ODlsM0oyY0lKS3JZV2ZrVE9uNm8rdz09

andcampaign #prowoman #prochild #newnarrative #wholelifeproject"

What is the trait that animals possess, that if humans possess it or them, would make it okay to treat them the same way?

I'm pretty sure your view on these matters are logically contradictory, if you want to see the formal argument: https://www.docdroid.net/vzCDGux/namethetrai-argument-map-v2-pdf

Why would you not be okay with aborting something that has lower consciousness than a pig, but are okay with slaughtering the pig (even though it isn't necessary)? If you were to say that they will have more consciousness in the future, then the same question I wrote at the start still stands, and your views are likely still contradictory logically.

Oh so now the hypothetical is too vague, and before you wouldn't accept a hypothetical, what's too vague about it? It's very clear. It's not a trap, my argument is logically sound and I can prove it. Here you go: https://www.docdroid.net/vzCDGux/namethetrai-argument-map-v2-pdf

According to the many people I have talked to who live and work in the Middle East it’s more along the line of “these things are good and are keeping us holy. If we had peace and stability it would lead to disobedience against Allah so we don’t want that.” Your response that everyone wants the same thing makes a big assumption. The truth is that people don’t approach life the same way across the globe and we can’t just expect that exposure to a different way will open their eyes or something. We can see this in Muslims moving into western countries where the women have rights and life is different and their response is to set up areas where they can live the same way they did in the countries they left and advocate for policies like the ones they escaped from. And the women are just as big advocates for this as the men. If you want a small insight you can read Wholly Different.

Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621575780/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_1NPX6DKVFR95R15D5VW9

> Living in a place is not equivalent to being killed

Actually they were murdered when they were returned. Many of these children are fleeing because they were explicitly targeted by gangs. Here's a random article on the subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/opinion/sunday/were-helping-deport-kids-to-die.html

> but they still have personhood.

Ok. Here's where we start to get to the real personhood argument. What legal rights of personhood do all those groups share? What legal rights of personhood do you wish to attribute to the fetus? Most importantly how are these rights ensured? protected? exercised?

> clinic then to press charges through law enforcement.

Not when it comes to an affidavit

An affidavit is a "sworn statement in writing" or a "declaration made under oath before a notary public or authorized officer."

Source

It is absolutely grounds for law enforcement to open an investigation.

> And rape by the spouse is sadly something that happens frequently.

And my problem with the the OP in the picture is that are advocating NOT reporting domestic violence because of their enumerated reasons.

They want abortions as a "fix" for difficult sexual assault cases over...something like...law enforcement.

> Lastly i don't understand what made you bring up sex trafficking.

Again the OP is essentially saying: "Children don't know how to report sexual assault, but we should allow them to get abortions and send them back." This could range from abused children to child sex trafficking.

What the fuck kind of thinking is that? Abortion clinics in a hypothetical "only abortion in the case of rape" world should take discrete reports of sexual assault and NOT report it to the police because it might maybe might possibly maybe might make the victim of the assault have a more difficult life? Based on what?

Just because women sometimes don't report sexual assault doesn't mean they should not report it. They are not just endangering their own lives by remaining silent. Even if they have good reasons to do so; there needs to be a much higher bar for not pressing charges than 'I need my abuser for money.'

My reply was too long for reddit apparently, so I copy and pasted it into a separate document, which you can view here if you're interested in replying. If so I look forward to your reply . . . .https://www.scribd.com/doc/275655682/Reply-to-Comment-About-Analogy-Between-an-Unborn-Baby-and-a-Coma-Patient-on-Reddit

If your mother was forced to have two abortions that's awful. No woman should be forced to do that. If she had carried them to term and her husband forced her to give them up for adoption do you think her depression and sadness wouldn't have been as bad? It's also very unfortunate that your stepmother became infertile, it's rare, but it does happen. Doctors should make sure women are aware of the risks, if you know you want biological children in the future maybe you would be best advised to choose adoption instead of abortion.

You mentioned in your other response about regulations. What regulations does a regular surgical clinic have to follow that an abortion clinic doesn't?

Hello, I'm a bot! The movie you linked is called Something the Lord Made, here's some Trailers

"An individual from whom blood, tissue, or an organ is taken for transfusion, implantation, or transplant."

https://www.wordnik.com/words/donor

Nothing from the Mother is taken, she has all the same parts she had going in, full and complete.

Also it's odd to refer to parents as "donors", parents don't donate food and shelter to their kids they provide it this is simply the mothers provision for her child. Parents are obligated to provide for their children legally, and they best do soy if they want to be viewed positively by other members of their society.

>The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are
considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life,
liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture,
and freedom of thought and expression.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/human%20rights

It is a human child, the human child is alive (or artificial wombs would not be possible), the human child is it's own person (the same DNA tests we use in court can prove this), the human child is human (again DNA proves that it has a full set of human DNA).

You literally cannot deny that the unborn child is a living individual human, and should thus have all the same human rights everyone else has.

Abortion: Any of various procedures that result in the termination of a pregnancy.

So, um, it looks like, by definition, treating ectopic pregnancy means having an abortion.

Back to the heart of your comment though:

> this whole position on “ectopic abortions” is a red herring.

I'm trying to understand exactly what policy positions you believe in, hence the title "What policies do you want enacted?"

I know the vast majority of abortions are not due to ectopic pregnancies, but in policy discussions, these things need to be accounted for. Because otherwise you end up with insane bills like this.

I am not trying to have a debate, I am not trying to change your mind, I am trying to understand what you want.

You still don't get the picture, I am for neither side. Both sides may promise things or say they stand for this or that, but they are both evil (no matter how much you might think one side is a better alternative). If you continue to participate in a broken society, it will continue to exist and it will continue to SLOWLY erode everything you care about. It's always a trade: manufactured fear for these past months and watch everyone give in to ridiculous rules & regulations because they want to feel safe..... when really it's just the sniffles.

The only way is to just not participate in meaningless activities. Things that won't have you jailed. Meaning: Don't vote, don't fill out a census, don't circumcise your boys, don't inject fetal cells and heavy metals into your babies, but file your taxes.

Life expectancy has dramatically decreased since ancient times. We have been living in unnatural societies for hundreds of years, of course the lifespan will decrease.

Haha!! No shit you can't operate on your own heart. Use your head & get to a hospital in actual emergencies. I'm saying that there is too much reliance of densely populated areas (urban / suburban) on other people (stores) for food and everyday basics. The Earth has provided us with everything we need to survive and thrive (i.e. plant medicine....also most active ingredients pharmaceuticals are derived from plants), even our bodies have ways to fight off diseases naturally.

I know you may not understand it all but I can at least point you in the right direction. https://dlive.tv/owenbenjamincomedy Check out the "replay tab"

r/Anarchy101, r/Anarchism and https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index a great places to start.

As for books I recommend

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

And Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin

Those are some good books to start off with.

>Being a member of a tree spies doesn't make you one.

"Being a member of the species Homo sapiens doesn't make you a human".

Stay in school.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/baby

In case you choose not to follow the link, the second definition for "baby" is "unborn child; a fetus."

And this is beside the point of the pro-life argument. Stop pretending that your shifting and extremely arbitrary definitions for the stages of human development in any way change every person's unalienable right to life, born or unborn.

I stand more well informed than I was this afternoon. Looking at some recent research, there's a 2015 analysis that put the rate of major complications requiring hospitalization/blood transfusions at 0.16% for 1st-trimester aspiration, 0.31% for medical, and 0.41% for 2ed-trimester & later (a 2013 analysis also put the serious complication rate of medical at <0.4%)

"Lives are more important than money." So you'll have no problem taking in the child I am legally forced to bear, even though I have no way of affording it, right?

edit to add: Planned Parenthood does not make money off of killing. 97% of PP's services is just healthcare. Depending on what year you look at, abortions are between 1 and 3 percent. Here is a link to their 2009-2010 financial report. Hopefully this will open your eyes to how wonderful a program it is! http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf?mode=window&amp;viewMode=doublePage

Here is a useful source for you to check out when going over this thread after you are hopefully banned. I would also recommend checking out the sidebar.

There's an excellent book on the topic; it's definitely pro-choice, but if you want to understand the argument that the pro-life movement has racist beginnings, reading it will help you understand. It's <em>The Lie That Binds</em> by Ellie Langford and Ilyse Hogue.

1. Read and study. Here's a great book to pick up: https://www.amazon.com/What-Say-When-Complete-Discussing/dp/1737047705

2. Be confident about your convictions. Kids your age are ignorant. That's not their fault. Y'all are young and still learning. Hence why my first suggestion is to read. Don't read memes and social media posts. Read actual literature so you can be ground and confident in actual knowledge.

3. Be outspoken about what you know. Don't hide. Don't be ashamed. The PC movement gained traction by using euphemisms to hide the ugly truth.

4. Read and study more.

It is Part D of Figure 13-12 of “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology” by Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia, 10th Edition, Copyright 2016

I have an unconventional take on this one. I think she's correct that the church in terms of politics did genuinely get more permissive towards abortion (partly because the dominant hypothesis was that ensoulment started at 40 days or so) around 1100 or so, but that it also coincided with the church tossing out the earliest complete anti killing teaching more so than purely just war theory (see e.g https://www.amazon.com/Early-Church-Killing-Comprehensive-Sourcebook/dp/0801036305/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&amp;qid=1630359670&amp;refinements=p_27%3ARonald+J.+Sider&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-7&amp;text=Ronald+J.+Sider for one reference). So by her argument she's actually implicitly defending the crusades- which is perhaps not the best line to take? Not that I don't think that mainline Democrat politicans are aynthing but immperialist warmongers, but think her argument is genuinely bad- which I would inevitably as a consistent life advocate think.

I would also highly suggest this book if you want to dive into the topic deeper. It’s one of the best cases for Pro-Life and written by a top-level Catholic philosopher:

https://amazon.com/Ethics-Abortion-Question-Routledge-Bioethics/dp/041573293X/ref=nodl\_

My good friend, Daniel Gump did some research and found that all 50 states have some form of prenatal child support in place. Even Georgia has a law on the books from pre-1800.

You can buy his book here:

https://www.amazon.com/Prenatal-Support-Across-United-States-ebook/dp/B08DFP5GLM

And you may not. Timothy R. Levine's book Duped suggests that people on average can detect truth from deception 54%. So, slightly higher than chance, but not great.

Why an article? It's a published oxford book and peer reviewed: According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 123, or 6.98%, had religion as their primary cause.

You can buy it here: https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Wars-Facts-Library-History/dp/0816028516

You're pretty stupid attempting to turn back on me something I have proof about. Also error on my part, meant to say 93% of wars were caused by people like you. I correct my error.

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Church-Killing-Comprehensive-Sourcebook/dp/0801036305

The first 300 years or so. They were of the opinion it was wrong for Christians to watch the state murder anyone lest they “pollute themselves with the guilt of murder.” Cyprian is quoted as saying that when the state kills it is considered virtuous but when the individual does it is a vice.

Interesting additional note - the study found that 5 years after being denied abortion, something like 94% of women who raised their children themselves no longer wished they had been able to get an abortion in the first place and were glad to have their children. They talk about it in the deep dive of their work in this book.

Good job listening to too many stupid people. You can buy a 36-pack of condoms on amazon for $12. If you're having sex so much you can't afford this, you probably should re-evaluate your priorities in life.

&#x200B;

Oh, and there are many more birth control providers besides planned parenthood. "without any reasonable method" my ass.

I would seek out a counsellor in your area that has some experience in helping folks with abortion trauma.

I would also recommend doing a read through and the exercises within the Grief Recovery Handbook.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061686077/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_rYaoFbQT3FK7R

Both of these helped my wife and I immensely this past year having suffered some trauma of our own. I believe healing is available to anyone, and that there are better days ahead for you.

That stuff didn't happen on accident. There was a concerted effort by vile men who found positions of power within the Catholic Church to draw-in viler men to do great damage.

An interesting read on this is the diary of one such "clergyman," uncovered after he died in an auto accident with the journal on his person.

I think that there are plenty of compelling arguments as to the historicity and truth of Christianity in particular. I would point you to this book as a one volume starting point if you are curious: https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198

Debating anything over social media or text is a no-no. It's very complicated and gets out of hand. In person is always better. I would encourage you to read the book Persuasive Pro-Life by Trent Horn. He is a Catholic Apologist whose book is about talking to people who are prochoice and convincing them that life is valuable, all without even mentioning God or any religion. I cannot recommend it enough and the arguments are the best you will ever read!!

Edit: Link is Here

Is this a good one? It's reusable an infinite amount of times and just requires a urine sample? Is it very easy to use and understand? I would be so excited if I didn't have to take pills anymore.

I can monitor things regularly if it's simple for me to understand. Or if someone can help me understand