Working4the1%
Well-Known Member
You support plan b. You support murdering babies. WWJD
Covid Vaccinations
- Thread starter fedx
- Start date
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
I see you're embarrassed by your position supporting murdering babies. Embarrassment is a good step in the right direction for you.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
99% of abortions are for purely self convenience and/or embarrassment. Trivializing the murder of babies is a truly horrible way of justifying the mother’s choice.
UnionStrong
Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
The court justifies abortion as a right to privacy, so I should be able to murder anyone I want to as long as I do it in private, right?
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Boy, you're as dense as the NIH.
A significant portion of rapes don't involve ejaculation. And there are half a dozen other statistical factors that make rape less likely to conceive a baby than other intercourse.
1 in 20 is the same as 5%. And the probability of rape conceiving a child is way, way less than that.
The NIH didn't do the math right because they love abortion. You didn't do it right because you don't know how.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Okay, my bad, I read your response incorrectly as changing 5% to 1-in-20.
Since you challenge my source as in error, please supply the correct statistics and your source.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
I can prove that 5% is stupid without knowing, or caring, or proving whether the right number is 1%, 3%, or 0.5%. It could be any of those. And a true, defensible answer would be hard to get. But we know for certain that 5% is not the answer.
The only way to say 5% is to be ideologically committed to making it as high as regular intercourse.
LOL, this person truly is pathetic.. I hope you have a supportive mom and dad.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Okay, prove it.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Already did.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Hearsay is not proof. Try again.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Why should I believe your reading will improve this time?
Are even muslim babies who were never 'saved' in heaven??? What about babies who die immediately after childbirth, but are not 'saved'- are they in heaven? And are dead babies, or even children or adults who never heard of Jesus, or the 'christian' god in heaven, even though they never even heard that they needed to be saved????? Your 'christianity' is a joke.
Last edited:
Plenty of unemployed migrants around who can replace them. Some of the new Afghan refugees will need jobs too.
You don't even stand with the already born all around the world.
Your source says there were 333 deaths in 2013 from the covid vaccine, and you trust them?????????
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Okay, I've tried to be evenhanded with you, but your throwing out numbers without citation only means you're full of
.Convince me I'm wrong. Substantiate your claims.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Okay, I've tried to be evenhanded with you, but your throwing out numbers without citation only means you're full of
Convince me I'm wrong. Substantiate your claims.
Here are two very obvious facts that are plenty to get rid of the 5% pregnancy rate from rape garbage.
The NIH just blindly applied the rate from other intercourse and pretended its the same for rape.
Female orgasm increases odds of conception. The 5% figure includes a lot of interocurse with that helpful factor. Rape rarely includes it. So the conception rate for rape will be lower than it would be for other interocurse.
A meaningful number of rapes do not include ejaculation. That could be 10%. It could be half. Data are hard to get. But it Is more than 0
So, rape is much less likely to include female orgasm, and less likely to include ejaculation, and by those two examples alone, the 5% alleged rate is stupid and impossible, and you're still a maroon.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
I've given more than enough to satisfy smart onlookers. And it will never be enough for maroons. So, Q. E. D. (go look it up) and goodbye.
