# Anti-lifers



## JBeukema

Why must they constantly lie? They lied to SCOTUS about two women being raped, thereby spitting in the faces of all real rape victims to push their money-making libertine agenda. They tel bald lies (ravi and Anguille come to mind) about forcing women to carry when it'll kill them. They lie about the scientifically verified *fact *that a fetus is a human life, being both alive and human. They lie about the fact that a rape victim can take Plan B to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and that very few abortions involve rape and incest. they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption.


Why must they base their entire case on lies if they support a 'good thing'?


----------



## mal

If they Admitted to themselves what they were Advocating for was Murder for Convenience because of Irresponsible Behavior and Actions of their own, and Most Importantly, without Due Process, they would Probably do the Earth a Favor and Frag themselves Hunter S. Thompson Style...

Hopefully NOT with Children in the other Room though.



peace...


----------



## AllieBaba

JB gets it right. Finally.


----------



## Luissa

JBeukema said:


> Why must they constantly lie? They lied to SCOTUS about two women being raped, thereby spitting in the faces of all real rape victims to push their money-making libertine agenda. They tel bald lies (ravi and Anguille come to mind) about forcing women to carry when it'll kill them. They lie about the scientifically verified *fact *that a fetus is a human life, being both alive and human. They lie about the fact that a rape victim can take Plan B to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and that very few abortions involve rape and incest. they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption.
> 
> 
> Why must they base their entire case on lies if they support a 'good thing'?


Have you ever gone to have an abortion?
You have no fucking clue what goes on, so don't pretend you do.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ah, so men aren't allowed to opine about the slaughter of children.

Therefore, women shouldn't be allowed to opine about rape. After all, what does a woman know about the urge to rape?


----------



## xsited1

History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.


----------



## Anguille

Luissa said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must they constantly lie? They lied to SCOTUS about two women being raped, thereby spitting in the faces of all real rape victims to push their money-making libertine agenda. They tel bald lies (ravi and Anguille come to mind) about forcing women to carry when it'll kill them. They lie about the scientifically verified *fact *that a fetus is a human life, being both alive and human. They lie about the fact that a rape victim can take Plan B to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and that very few abortions involve rape and incest. they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption.
> 
> 
> Why must they base their entire case on lies if they support a 'good thing'?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever gone to have an abortion?
> You have no fucking clue what goes on, so don't pretend you do.
Click to expand...

J Beuk-enema is still a fascist. Nothing has changed.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Ah, so men aren't allowed to opine about the slaughter of children.
> 
> Therefore, women shouldn't be allowed to opine about rape. After all, what does a woman know about the urge to rape?


Get some air , Alli. Your brain is dangerously low on oxygen.


----------



## JBeukema

This idiotic internet eel can't be for real, can it? I mean, can it really take itself seriously? Can anyone be so fucked up in the head?


----------



## Anguille

xsited1 said:


> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.


The old, "Yer gonna go to hell yes ye are!! tactic. 
Save it for feebleminded. 

If there_ is_ a Judgment Day, those who tried to infringe on the civil rights of others will have some serious 'splainin' to do.


----------



## mal

Anguille said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> The old, "Yer gonna go to hell yes ye are!! tactic.
> Save it for feebleminded.
> 
> If there_ is_ a Judgment Day, those who tried to infringe on the civil rights of others will have some serious 'splainin' to do.
Click to expand...


Like the Heartbeat and the Nervous System you Stopped in your Execution for Convenience because you are an Irresponsible Selfish Prick?...

That Baby will be in your Soul until you Meet God, you Fucking Stain on Humanity.

Sleep Well.



peace...


----------



## Big Black Dog

Gosh JB.  Are you having a bad day or something?  For once you have said something I can be in total agreement on.  I'm almost afraid to ask what's next...  How about I mail you a few Christian religious tracts?  You've perked up my ears!!!  Don't disappoint me now.


----------



## JBeukema

Big Black Dog said:


> Gosh JB.  Are you having a bad day or something?  For once you have said something I can be in total agreement on.  I'm almost afraid to ask what's next...  How about I mail you a few Christian religious tracts?  You've perked up my ears!!!  Don't disappoint me now.



Sure, i could use the laughs


----------



## Anguille

tha malcontent said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> The old, "Yer gonna go to hell yes ye are!! tactic.
> Save it for feebleminded.
> 
> If there_ is_ a Judgment Day, those who tried to infringe on the civil rights of others will have some serious 'splainin' to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the Heartbeat and the Nervous System you Stopped in your Execution for Convenience because you are an Irresponsible Selfish Prick?...
> 
> That Baby will be in your Soul until you Meet God, you Fucking Stain on Humanity.
> 
> Sleep Well.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...

Why is it that some of the people who pretend to be the godliest people have the foulest mouths?

peace yourself , hypotwit.


----------



## xsited1

Anguille said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> The old, "Yer gonna go to hell yes ye are!! tactic.
> Save it for feebleminded.
> 
> If there_ is_ a Judgment Day, those who tried to infringe on the civil rights of others will have some serious 'splainin' to do.
Click to expand...


Exactly right.  That's why I said they would be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  History will say, "Both infringed on the civil rights of others.  Both treated their victims as less than human.  Both believed that what they were doing was right.  Both actions were legal at the time."  

Let us hope that humanity will become more enlightened by then.


----------



## Anguille

JBeukema said:


> Why must they constantly lie? They lied to SCOTUS about two women being raped, thereby spitting in the faces of all real rape victims to push their money-making libertine agenda. They tel bald lies (ravi and Anguille come to mind) about forcing women to carry when it'll kill them. They lie about the scientifically verified *fact *that a fetus is a human life, being both alive and human. They lie about the fact that a rape victim can take Plan B to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and that very few abortions involve rape and incest. they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption.
> 
> 
> Why must they base their entire case on lies if they support a 'good thing'?


The Funny thing I noticed about J Beuk-Enema ...


----------



## mal

Anguille said:


> Why is it that some of the people who pretend to be the godliest people have the foulest mouths?
> 
> peace yourself , hypotwit.



Ah Shucks... You Fuckhole!... You got me...

Maybe I will go and Execute an Unborn Child, Stop it's Heartbeat, and Join your Club!...

How many Babies have you Executed because you are so Fucking Important that you can't Take Responsibility for your Actions?...



peace...


----------



## AllieBaba

I'd love to know at what age we are deemed worthy of rights...and what age we are deemed unworthy.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> I'd love to know at what age we are deemed worthy of rights...



When you're old enough to vote for a Democrat



> and what age we are deemed unworthy.


When you're old enough to be called 'conservative'


----------



## Anguille

xsited1 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> The old, "Yer gonna go to hell yes ye are!! tactic.
> Save it for feebleminded.
> 
> If there_ is_ a Judgment Day, those who tried to infringe on the civil rights of others will have some serious 'splainin' to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  That's why I said they would be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  History will say, "Both infringed on the civil rights of others.  Both treated their victims as less than human.  Both believed that what they were doing was right.  Both actions were legal at the time."
> 
> Let us hope that humanity will become more enlightened by then.
Click to expand...

"Both treated their victims as less than human" Indeed!  Both slave owners and anti choice, forced birthers.


----------



## AllieBaba

Okie dokey then.

Behold what fruit public education wroughteth.


----------



## Zoom-boing

JBeukema said:


> Why must they constantly lie? They lied to SCOTUS about two women being raped, thereby spitting in the faces of all real rape victims to push their money-making libertine agenda. They tel bald lies (ravi and Anguille come to mind) about forcing women to carry when it'll kill them. They lie about the scientifically verified *fact *that a fetus is a human life, being both alive and human. They lie about the fact that a rape victim can take Plan B to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and that very few abortions involve rape and incest. they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption.
> 
> 
> Why must they base their entire case on lies if they support a 'good thing'?



I find it interesting that no pro-abortion supporters have even attempted to address the OP.


----------



## xsited1

Anguille said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old, "Yer gonna go to hell yes ye are!! tactic.
> Save it for feebleminded.
> 
> If there_ is_ a Judgment Day, those who tried to infringe on the civil rights of others will have some serious 'splainin' to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  That's why I said they would be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  History will say, "Both infringed on the civil rights of others.  Both treated their victims as less than human.  Both believed that what they were doing was right.  Both actions were legal at the time."
> 
> Let us hope that humanity will become more enlightened by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Both treated their victims as less than human" Indeed!  Both slave owners and anti choice, forced birthers.
Click to expand...


An enlightened people will recognize murder when they see it.  Murder out of convenience is still murder.  The Nazis were able to justify the killing of innocent people.  Rationalizating and legalizing an immoral action is still immoral.


----------



## JBeukema

Zoom-boing said:


> I find it interesting that no pro-abortion supporters have even attempted to address the original OP.


I find it revealing that they can never bring themselves to say 'I believe I should be able to kill an unborn child because I do not think that children younger than _x_ have any human rights based on the following (insert arguments here) and find personal convenience to outweigh any right the child might have to continue to exist and live'. They can never say that. It's always 'it's my body' or 'it's not a human' or some other way of avoiding actually stating what it is they want.


----------



## mal

AllieBaba said:


> I'd love to know at what age we are deemed worthy of rights...and what age we are deemed unworthy.



Apparently if you are not Old enough to Vote, you can be Executed for Convenience...

At least that's how I Understand the American Left's Love of Abortion.



peace...


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Okie dokey then.
> 
> Behold what fruit public education wroughteth.


What kind of education did _you_ get, Alli ,that taught you strained attempts at cleverness like "wroughteth" made you look schmart?


----------



## Big Black Dog

> Why is it that some of the people who pretend to be the godliest people have the foulest mouths?



Christians are "perfect" people.  Just forgiven.  Can't say about the rest of the folks around here but I have over 20 years of sailor talk programed into my system.  My dying words will probably be something like, "Oh, shit..."


----------



## tigerbob

xsited1 said:


> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.



In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read.


----------



## Zoom-boing

JBeukema said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that no pro-abortion supporters have even attempted to address the original OP.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it revealing that they can never bring themselves to say 'I believe I should be able to kill an unborn child because I do not think that children younger than _x_ have any human rights based on the following (insert arguments here) and find personal convenience to outweigh any right the child might have to continue to exist and live'. They can never say that. It's always 'it's my body' or 'it's not a human' or some other way of avoiding actually stating what it is they want.
Click to expand...


Their arguments are their way of rationalizing murder.


----------



## mal

Big Black Dog said:


> Why is it that some of the people who pretend to be the godliest people have the foulest mouths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are "perfect" people.  Just forgiven.  Can't say about the rest of the folks around here but I have over 20 years of sailor talk programed into my system.  My dying words will probably be something like, "Oh, shit..."
Click to expand...


Fuckin' Straight!...

Just don't Take the Lord's Name...

Mean it if you are Condemning someone...

Other than that, MotherFuck a Liberal.



peace...


----------



## Big Black Dog

> MotherFuck a Liberal.



I'd say that's probably some good advice...


----------



## JBeukema

Still no responses to the OP from the anti-lifers. They can't defend their lies or weasel their way out of it, so they start another thread to attack me and continue to evade.

ANSWER THE QUESTION- WHY MUST YOU PEOPLE LIE? WHY CAN'T YOU  SAY WHAT YOU WANT AND ARGUE YOUR CASE USING ANYTHING OTHER THAN LIES?


----------



## tigerbob

JBeukema said:


> Still no responses to the OP from the anti-lifers. They can't defend their lies or weasel their way out of it, so they start another thread to attack me and continue to evade.
> 
> ANSWER THE QUESTION- WHY MUST YOU PEOPLE LIE? WHY CAN'T YOU  SAY WHAT YOU WANT AND ARGUE YOUR CASE USING ANYTHING OTHER THAN LIES?



ROFL!  Now you're back on this thread, posting exactly the same as you are on the other!  Are you feeling unloved this morning?


----------



## Care4all

AllieBaba said:


> I'd love to know at what age we are deemed worthy of rights...and what age we are deemed unworthy.



right now, you have ALL rights from when you are birthed/born to the time you die...


----------



## xsited1

Care4all said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to know at what age we are deemed worthy of rights...and what age we are deemed unworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right now, you have ALL rights from when you are birthed/born to the time you die...
Click to expand...


That's what the law says in the United States, but we all know laws are not always right or moral.  As I've mentioned before, it used to be legal to own slaves.  I do not believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly, but that is my personal opinion.  Most of us (if not all of us) will not live long enough to find out.


----------



## Care4all

xsited1 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to know at what age we are deemed worthy of rights...and what age we are deemed unworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right now, you have ALL rights from when you are birthed/born to the time you die...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the law says in the United States, but we all know laws are not always right or moral.  As I've mentioned before, it used to be legal to own slaves.  I do not believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly, but that is my personal opinion.  Most of us (if not all of us) will not live long enough to find out.
Click to expand...


I think those that made this decision to abort their future offspring will be judged separately, individually and face to face... for their own freewill reasons and actions upon judgment day.

although I am against abortion, I don't think those that believe that leaving the government out of something extremely personal and private. at least in its earliest stages, will be judged as poorly as you think....

FYI- not that it makes it just, early abortion was not illegal in this country until the middle of the 19th century or there about,  when states individually began to ban it and make it illegal due to a huge evangelical lobbying effort.

care


----------



## JBeukema

So... they still have no answer or excuse?


----------



## Care4all

i don't think roe v wade was decided properly, and believe this does properly reside with the States themselves, to govern this...however, Roe v wade is the law of the land and there is nothing that will ever change this....too much precedence has taken place since this decision to change it and give it back to the State itself.

Just as with the Supreme court decision to end the recount and give the presidency to Bush...was the wrong decision, we all had to live with it....

Care


----------



## JBeukema

Roe V. Wade was based on nothing but lies. Perjury was the sole argument of the anti-lifers and the abortion industry


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, you Conservatives better get on the horn about abortion. It is the only issue that you have the slightest credibility on. After all, your potential 2012 male candidates have proven themselves as randy as Clinton. The female candidate is a fruitcake and cannot be trusted to finish a job. 

And then we have the last eight years of incompetance, corruption, and lies. Yes, run around, screech and holler about abortion. You have nothing else.


----------



## Montrovant

JBeukema said:


> Why must they constantly lie? They lied to SCOTUS about two women being raped, thereby spitting in the faces of all real rape victims to push their money-making libertine agenda. They tel bald lies (ravi and Anguille come to mind) about forcing women to carry when it'll kill them. They lie about the scientifically verified *fact *that a fetus is a human life, being both alive and human. They lie about the fact that a rape victim can take Plan B to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and that very few abortions involve rape and incest. they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption.
> 
> 
> Why must they base their entire case on lies if they support a 'good thing'?



I'm fairly certain I've never lied about any of those things, yet I'm still in favor of abortion being legal.
For me, the issues are viability and thought.  I consider the ability to think to be the more important distinction, although I have no idea how to accurately gauge it.  Basically, in the same way I don't feel any compunction about 'pulling the plug' when it comes to people in a vegetative state, I don't care about abortions performed on a fetus who's brain has not yet developed enough to think.  Unfortunately I have no idea if our understanding of the brain and ability to monitor it are such that we can determine such things in a developing fetus.

I also believe that what will make abortion eventually become, if not obsolete, at least much less frequent than it is now, is technology, not morality.  I think more advanced and easily accessible forms of birth control will be what reduces abortions to very minor levels.  People are going to continue to have sex, and many will be very cavalier about the consequences; that seems unavoidable.  If we end up with safe, extremely effective, long-term birth control, which is both affordable for all and easily and safely reversible or removable, that will have a much greater impact than morality, which is so variable.

I'm rambling and not paying that much attention to what I'm typing, so I'll just stop now


----------



## AllieBaba

So we should be able to dispose of anyone who are incapable of communication? Because you have no idea at what point a baby "thinks". Newborns don't "think". They're babies.


----------



## JBeukema

Why does OR assume we're all 'conservatives' and where does he get off questioning our credibility?


----------



## Luissa

AllieBaba said:


> Ah, so men aren't allowed to opine about the slaughter of children.
> 
> Therefore, women shouldn't be allowed to opine about rape. After all, what does a woman know about the urge to rape?


He wasn't stating his opinion, he was refering to it as a fact when he stated what health care workers do at abortion clinics. With him not being able to have an abortion, he has no clue what goes on.


----------



## JBeukema

Luissa said:


> With him not being able to have an abortion, he has no clue what goes on.


So you can't know what it means to hang someone 'til you've been hanged?


----------



## Luissa

How about we discuss your lies!
"they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption."

For starters you must have a signed paper stating that you are pregnant by a health care official that you are pregnant before getting an abortion. YOu also must have an ultra sound before you have that abortion. You also have to go in a day or two before you have the abortion and go through a counceling session regarding your decision, where they go over every option you have. THey also tell you what stage you are at in your pregnancy when you do have an ultra sound. And they also give you reading on adoption while you are at your counseling session.
You want to tell more lies about something you nothing about Buttermilk?
Why don't you explain to people how you believe in postive eugenics again.


----------



## Luissa

JBeukema said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> With him not being able to have an abortion, he has no clue what goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't know what it means to hang someone 'til you've been hanged?
Click to expand...

Have you been to an abortion clinic? Have you watched an abortion being performed?
And no you will have no idea what it means to hang someone until you do so or it happens to you. You may have an opinion, but not one based on experiece or knowledge.


----------



## JBeukema

The anti-lifers say they're not pregnant, that it's not a baby, that they just have some of cells from their own body to remove

Ultrasounds are discouraged

Stop with your lies and evasions


----------



## JBeukema

Luissa said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> With him not being able to have an abortion, he has no clue what goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't know what it means to hang someone 'til you've been hanged?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you been to an abortion clinic? Have you watched an abortion being performed?
Click to expand...


Have you? do you know that I haven't?


----------



## JBeukema

I love how you basically argue that noone can condemn the Nazis until they've thrown a jew in an oven or been in a gas chamber- since your opinion's not based on experience


----------



## DiveCon

JBeukema said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't know what it means to hang someone 'til you've been hanged?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been to an abortion clinic? Have you watched an abortion being performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you? do you know that I haven't?
Click to expand...

both, good questions


----------



## Diuretic

What's your problem with abortion JB?


----------



## tigerbob

JBeukema said:


> *The anti-lifers say they're not pregnant, that it's not a baby, *that they just have some of cells from their own body to remove
> 
> Ultrasounds are discouraged
> 
> Stop with your lies and evasions



Of course they are pregnant.  Of course it's a baby.  

I love the way you make an untrue blanket statement and then tell others to stop lying.


----------



## AllieBaba

Anguille says it's not a baby. She says it's just a part of the mother's body until it suddenly becomes its own person magically, sometime in the first 6 months of life.


----------



## Diuretic

What's a "baby"?


----------



## JBeukema

Diuretic said:


> What's your problem with abortion JB?



I oppose needless homicide. Homicide is only to be allowed in instances of self-defense (extending this to soldiers who kill in war to defend themselves and/o others), capital punishment, and 'assisted suicides'. Of course, once someone accepts this principle (either consciously or pe4r the social contract that every society has adopted that prohibits homicide), the logical extrapolation of this principle can only lead one to oppose the 'abortion' of an unborn human child.

A rough breakdown of how reason leads one to this conclusion:

-----

(A)
-as a rule those who are sane and rational do not want to be killed. Society defines unlawful homicide as 'murder'

-We define 'murder' as the intentional ending of human life by another individual (willful homicide) when not done
--during war
--in self-defense
--as an 'assisted suicide'*
--as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it**
--by the State, as capital punishment for grievous crimes in order to maintain a lawful and just society
--in occordance with the will of the individual or as determined to be the best or only course of actuion by competent and impartial medical professionals to end suffering or halt the delaying or xtension of the dying process (as with the braindead)

-We therefore call for the legal protection of all human life, save for the aforementioned exceptions. This has led to a social condemnation of murder (the individual moral reasoning of the people is not important to this examination

(B) For the purpose of this examination,. 'Human life' will be used interchangeably with 'a human life'; this should not be misconstrued so as to imply that individual cells of one's anatomy should be treated as equal to the welfare of the individual as a whole. Human life is defined as:
-Being alive
-Being human
-being a distinct and discernible organism unto itself

Together these, three traits define an distinct living human

(C) A child, from conception is alive- at any point of development
A search for the scientific definition of life reveals the following::


> ... the follwing characteristic:
> 
> 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment (within the organism)
> 
> 2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
> 
> 3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components ...
> 
> 4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
> 
> 5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment....
> 
> 6. Response to stimuli
> 
> 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
> derived from


(The question of sentience has no bearing on the classification of something as 'alive')

(D) Since a human child is, by definition, alive from conception, any purposeful destruction of that life is willful hiomicide, and therefore murdered, as outlined in brief in (A) and cannot be allowed.

One cannot condemn murder and simultaneously condoning the killing of an unborn child (save for the noted exceptions), for that would be logically contradictory

*for those who support such a clause; this is currently a matter of debate

**such as rare forms of conjoined twins or the medical termination of ectopic or other medically dangerous pregnancy that endangers the life of mother and/or child

Before any of the libs call a baby a 'tumor'
-A tumor has the same genetic code as the host, and is therefore their body
-A child has a different genetic code from with parent, therefore a child is not a part of a woman's body. Since the child is by definition alive, is genetically human, and is not a part of the woman's body, it is- by definition- a separate human life.


----------



## Diuretic

The wrongfulness or otherwise of the act of killing a human being depends on the context.  Of itself it's simply an act, without morality.  A disease kills a human being, we don't call the disease immoral.  

Is killing a baby immoral?  Why?  Could there any instances where killing a baby could be moral?


----------



## JBeukema

Diuretic is too stupid to see that what i have outlined is not remotely a moral argument, but an ethical argument that starts with the basis of the existing social contract prohibiting homicide and following the logical implications thereof to the 
criminalization, condemnation, and prohibition of the killing of the unborn that anti-lifers euphemistically call 'abortion'


----------



## Diuretic

JB I can address your argument point by point if you like.  And if you like you can actually try to address my questions.  I'm sure the thread can take it.


----------



## JBeukema

Dis: if you don't want to be addressed, stop posting in my threads. Also, stop sending me your little love notes; I don't want you.

Now, we still await an anti-lifer to explain how denying basic facts and dealing in lies shows their position to be something they can defend.


----------



## JBeukema

You didn't ask any questions relevant to the subject at hand.


----------



## Diuretic

I see.


----------



## JBeukema

You seek to divert the discussion to a debate regarding moral absolutes; noone's falling for it


----------



## Diuretic

Moral absolutes?  Ya reckon?


----------



## Luissa

JBeukema said:


> The anti-lifers say they're not pregnant, that it's not a baby, that they just have some of cells from their own body to remove
> 
> Ultrasounds are discouraged
> 
> Stop with your lies and evasions


YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ULTRA SOUND ANYTIME YOU HAVE AN ABORTION!
For one they have to make sure it is not an etopic pregnany, you fucking idiot!
You do not know what you are talking about, so shut the fuck up.


----------



## Luissa

DiveCon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been to an abortion clinic? Have you watched an abortion being performed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you? do you know that I haven't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both, good questions
Click to expand...

I have seen three be performed and they do everything that I stated before they performed them. I also have a friend who did her internship while in nursing school at Planned Parenthood. 
He knows nothing about what goes on and the fact he says they do not do ultrasounds just proves that he has never seen an abortion be performed.


----------



## DiveCon

Luissa said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you? do you know that I haven't?
> 
> 
> 
> both, good questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have seen three be performed and they do everything that I stated before they performed them. I also have a friend who did her internship while in nursing school at Planned Parenthood.
> He knows nothing about what goes on and the fact he says they do not do ultrasounds just proves that he has never seen an abortion be performed.
Click to expand...

just because they do them where you were, doesnt mean they do them at all
i dont know as i have not and would not ever be present for one


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Anguille says it's not a baby. She says it's just a part of the mother's body until it suddenly becomes its own person magically, sometime in the first 6 months of life.


Baba, why do continue to make up stuff about me? Is that all you can do to try to win debates? Make up stuff?


----------



## Diuretic

I feel the same way about post-mortem examinations, I hated the damn things when I had to go.  Necessary but unpleasant, well to me anyway.


----------



## JBeukema

So luissa continues to go on her little rampage and Anguille continues to project.

Neither is able to refute or rebut anything JB has said


----------



## Luissa

DiveCon said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> both, good questions
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen three be performed and they do everything that I stated before they performed them. I also have a friend who did her internship while in nursing school at Planned Parenthood.
> He knows nothing about what goes on and the fact he says they do not do ultrasounds just proves that he has never seen an abortion be performed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just because they do them where you were, doesnt mean they do them at all
> i dont know as i have not and would not ever be present for one
Click to expand...

 I will say it again, they have to make sure it is not an etopic pregnancy so they do them everywhere unless you have them in a back alley. You can't go in and try to perform an abortion if the egg has not been fertilized in the uterus. Because if it hasn't than they have to have surgery. Just as you would have an ultra sound before you have a DNC or give birth to a child if you are having it in an hospital.


----------



## Anguille

JBeukema said:


> Dis: if you don't want to be addressed, stop posting in my threads. Also, stop sending me your little love notes; I don't want you.
> 
> Now, we still await an anti-lifer to explain how denying basic facts and dealing in lies shows their position to be something they can defend.


  Well, you're an anti choice anti lifer. Why don't you just go right ahead and explain  how denying basic facts and dealing in lies shows your position to be something you can defend.
Or maybe you just want to keep posting nasty polls like the one you did this morning that got deleted?


----------



## Luissa

They also have to make sure you are not more than 12 weeks along because than it becomes a legal issue. and JB you are fucking IDIOT!


----------



## Anguille

Diuretic said:


> Moral absolutes?  Ya reckon?


----------



## Luissa

JBeukema said:


> So luissa continues to go on her little rampage and Anguille continues to project.
> 
> Neither is able to refute or rebut anything JB has said


I actually proved that everything in you OP is a lie and you have no clue what goes on during an abortion. Why don't you try to tell me about child birth now.


----------



## JBeukema

Anguille said:


> Well, you're an anti choice anti lifer.



Your dull self-contradictions highlight your stupidity and ignorance, and your childish namecalling highlights the fact that you're not worth wasting any more time with, as all you are is another troll.



Luissa said:


> than it becomes a legal issue.



See, it's only whether they can get away with making their mioney that they care about- just like when they tell underage girls to lie about their age to avoid having to comply with parental  consent laws. They try to talk about 'viability' and 'personhood', but they don't care about wither and would abort up to conception and 18 years of age if they could.



> and JB you are fucking IDIOT!



Your pathetic attacks on JB merely highlight your own lack of intelligent input


----------



## Luissa

Actually it is because they legally can't perform an abortion after 12 weeks you FUCKING IDIOT!
NOne of what you have said as been based on intelligence but on lies, you know nothing about the subject you are talking about and you try to pass your opinion off as fact even thought it isn't even close to the truth.
It would be like me trying to tell you about anal sex.


----------



## JBeukema

Luissa said:


> Actually it is because they legally can't perform an abortion after 12 weeks you FUCKING IDIOT!



More personal attacks- and you confirm that it's only about whether they can legally make their money and not out of any concern that they might kill a child they have already conceded is, in fact, a human child or terminating a 'viable personhood'.

Next you'll tell me that the abortion industry cares about rape victims 



> It would be like me trying to tell you about anal sex.



I don't doubt you experience


----------



## DiveCon

Luissa said:


> Actually it is because they legally can't perform an abortion after 12 weeks you FUCKING IDIOT!
> NOne of what you have said as been based on intelligence but on lies, you know nothing about the subject you are talking about and you try to pass your opinion off as fact even thought it isn't even close to the truth.
> It would be like me trying to tell you about anal sex.


where is that law?
thats been a fight for a long time over late term abortions
maybe its that way in YOUR state, but not all of them


----------



## Luissa

DiveCon said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is because they legally can't perform an abortion after 12 weeks you FUCKING IDIOT!
> NOne of what you have said as been based on intelligence but on lies, you know nothing about the subject you are talking about and you try to pass your opinion off as fact even thought it isn't even close to the truth.
> It would be like me trying to tell you about anal sex.
> 
> 
> 
> where is that law?
> thats been a fight for a long time over late term abortions
> maybe its that way in YOUR state, but not all of them
Click to expand...

In most states it is illegal with Kansas being one of the only states where it is legal.


----------



## Luissa

JBeukema said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is because they legally can't perform an abortion after 12 weeks you FUCKING IDIOT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More personal attacks- and you confirm that it's only about whether they can legally make their money and not out of any concern that they might kill a child they have already conceded is, in fact, a human child or terminating a 'viable personhood'.
> 
> Next you'll tell me that the abortion industry cares about rape victims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be like me trying to tell you about anal sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't doubt you experience
Click to expand...

and you aren't personally attacking "anti lifers" with your lies. When you try to pass off lies as facts that is an attack on someone's opinion.

"Next you'll tell me that the abortion industry cares about rape victims "
and example of an attack on people who work at abortion clinics, whom you have no facts to back up your claim. Why don't you go back to your religious thread and attack more people for their beliefs.


----------



## Anguille

Luissa said:


> It would be like me trying to tell you about anal sex.





JBeukema said:


> I don't doubt you experience




She's talking about _yours_.


----------



## Luissa

Anguille said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be like me trying to tell you about anal sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt you experience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She's talking about _yours_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact he didn't get that part, proves my point even more.
Click to expand...


----------



## tigerbob

AllieBaba said:


> Anguille says it's not a baby. She says it's just a part of the mother's body until it suddenly becomes its own person magically, sometime in the first 6 months of life.



Yes, I know, but I say it is a baby, and I believe that life starts significantly earlier than Ang does.  

I will defend my views, and I'm sure Ang will defend hers.  We will probably disagree in several areas, but we can still both be called pro-choice.  JB as usual fails to appreciate that not all advocates of choice advocate the same degree of choice.


----------



## mal

tigerbob said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille says it's not a baby. She says it's just a part of the mother's body until it suddenly becomes its own person magically, sometime in the first 6 months of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, but I say it is a baby, and I believe that life starts significantly earlier than Ang does.
> 
> I will defend my views, and I'm sure Ang will defend hers.  We will probably disagree in several areas, but we can still both be called pro-choice.  JB as usual fails to appreciate that not all advocates of choice advocate the same degree of choice.
Click to expand...


Stopping a Human Heartbeat is Murder...

That's the Line...

What Side of that Line are you on?...



peace...


----------



## JBeukema

tha malcontent said:


> Stopping a Human Heartbeat is Murder...


Not only is that factually inaccurate, it's also just plain stupid


----------



## mal

JBeukema said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stopping a Human Heartbeat is Murder...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is that factually inaccurate, it's also just plain stupid
Click to expand...


Because the Law Disagrees me, doesn't make it any Less True.

The Court was Wrong on Slavery also...



peace...


----------



## JBeukema

'Murder' is, by definition aa legal term
*Noun*

S: (n) *murder*, slaying, execution (unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being) 
(princeton)

To say that ending a human heartbeat is always unjustifiable is retarded.


----------



## tigerbob

tha malcontent said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille says it's not a baby. She says it's just a part of the mother's body until it suddenly becomes its own person magically, sometime in the first 6 months of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, but I say it is a baby, and I believe that life starts significantly earlier than Ang does.
> 
> I will defend my views, and I'm sure Ang will defend hers.  We will probably disagree in several areas, but we can still both be called pro-choice.  JB as usual fails to appreciate that not all advocates of choice advocate the same degree of choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stopping a Human Heartbeat is Murder...
> 
> That's the Line...
> 
> What Side of that Line are you on?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure that the majority of the pro life lobby would disagree with you and insist that "the line" is earlier.

That said, I describe myself as pro choice and I believe that abortion should be illegal from exactly the point you mention - once the heart starts beating.  

Most of the pro choice lobby disagree with me since the heartbeat starts in the first trimester (at the latest 8 weeks, generally around 6 weeks, or as early as 4 weeks, depending on which source you believe) which they consider is no choice at all since it does not give the woman enough time to choose, and in some cases does not give her enough time to find out she's pregnant.

So, generally I'm in no man's land between the two opposing sets of views and, if you truly believe that "that's the line", so are you.  Jump right into my nightmare, the water's warm....


----------



## JBeukema

tigerbob said:


> the water's warm....


sorry, I had to pee


----------



## mal

JBeukema said:


> retarded.



Yes you are...

And Slavery was "Constitutional" at one Point...

Because the Court is Wrong doesn't Negate the Fact that Taking a Life without Due Process or Cause is Murder.



peace...


----------



## garyd

Luissa you ignorant twit that doctor got offed in Kansas legally performed Bortions upto and occasionally into  the 3rd trimester  That would be just a wee bit more than 12 weeks. 

Since Roe v. Wade was first produce almost all case law concerning it has been on the side of limiting its effect rather than expanding it so it is scarcely beyond the scope of possibility that it will one day be repealed.

Don't tell me what I know and don't know about abortion you deranged harpies. My wife had an abortion shortly after we met some other guys kid, unfortunately her mom convinced her to have the abortion. It took place in June. How do I remember after 35 years soon to be 36? Because I spent the first 13 years of our lives together holding her in my arms while she cried her heart out over her lost child every June while I did my best to console her.

Yeah you give them an ultrasound. How many times does the mother get to see the pictures you freaking troll? Never would be my guess.  Hell planned parenthood and NARAL fought a state law that would have subjected abortion clinics to the same inspection routine as any other outpatient surgical facility like they thought dooms day was at hand. Why? could it be that they didn't want to have to spend time cleaning the damn charnel pit up once in a while?


----------



## Luissa

tigerbob said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, but I say it is a baby, and I believe that life starts significantly earlier than Ang does.
> 
> I will defend my views, and I'm sure Ang will defend hers.  We will probably disagree in several areas, but we can still both be called pro-choice.  JB as usual fails to appreciate that not all advocates of choice advocate the same degree of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stopping a Human Heartbeat is Murder...
> 
> That's the Line...
> 
> What Side of that Line are you on?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the majority of the pro life lobby would disagree with you and insist that "the line" is earlier.
> 
> That said, I describe myself as pro choice and I believe that abortion should be illegal from exactly the point you mention - once the heart starts beating.
> 
> Most of the pro choice lobby disagree with me since the heartbeat starts in the first trimester (at the latest 8 weeks, generally around 6 weeks, or as early as 4 weeks, depending on which source you believe) which they consider is no choice at all since it does not give the woman enough time to choose, and in some cases does not give her enough time to find out she's pregnant.
> 
> So, generally I'm in no man's land between the two opposing sets of views and, if you truly believe that "that's the line", so are you.  Jump right into my nightmare, the water's warm....
Click to expand...

You usually can't hear the heart beat until 10 weeks not saying it isn't there.
And the United States uses the 40 week system when you are only pregnant 38 weeks if you deliver on your due date. They count from your last period not from fertilization.


----------



## garyd

Actually dipstick by the time your average woman beigns to suspect she might be pregnant say about six weeks in the child to be already has brainwaves, a heart beat and fingerprints.


----------



## KittenKoder

garyd said:


> Actually dipstick by the time your average woman beigns to suspect she might be pregnant say about six weeks in the child to be already has brainwaves, a heart beat and fingerprints.



Are you high?


----------



## garyd

Nope that is the reality, like it or not. Better instruments mean better data. That was as of 5 years ago.


----------



## JBeukema

> *Three Months*
> 
> By now your baby is about 3 inches long and weighs nearly an ounce. Her tiny, unique *fingerprints* are now in place.



Fetal Development Week by Week Images | BabyCenter


----------



## JBeukema

> Weeks 4 to 5
> 
> Arm and leg buds become visible
> Brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible
> Eyes and ear structures begin to form
> Formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones
> *Further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm*
> Movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels


(emphasis added)
Fetal Development



> Week 6The embryo is about 1/5 of an inch in length. A primitive heart is beating. Head, mouth, liver, and intestines begin to take shape.


http://www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fetal-development/


----------



## KittenKoder

garyd said:


> Nope that is the reality, like it or not. Better instruments mean better data. That was as of 5 years ago.



*rae* Periods happen every four weeks, so at most one starts suspecting at four weeks, at most. Pregnancy tests can find out within days of conception now.

So the moral is, you are either completely ignorant of women and biology, or you have no concept of math.


----------



## JBeukema

This, I was not aware of and I found interesting



> Week 4The embryo may float freely in the uterus for about 48 hours before implanting. Upon implantation, complex connections between the mother and embryo develop to form the placenta.


----------



## JBeukema

Same information mirrored here with the following accreditation 


> Updated by: Deirdre OReilly, MD, MPH, Neonatologist, Division of Newborn Medicine, Childrens Hospital Boston and Instructor in Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Review Provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network.


----------



## garyd

Very few women make the automatic assumption that they are pregnant until about the sixth week. more women than not have fairly irregular periods hence the abject failure of the rhythm method of birth control. And very few test for pregnancy until they begin to believe they might actually be pregnant.


----------



## JBeukema

garyd said:


> Very few women make the automatic assumption that they are pregnant until about the sixth week.



Are you assuming, or do you have a source you plan to cite?



> And very few test for pregnancy until they begin to believe they might actually be pregnant.


Again, do you have a national poll or something, or is this just your opinion? You've already shown your information to be accurate earlier in this thread.


----------



## DiveCon

JBeukema said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very few women make the automatic assumption that they are pregnant until about the sixth week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you assuming, or do you have a source you plan to cite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And very few test for pregnancy until they begin to believe they might actually be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, do you have a national poll or something, or is this just your opinion? You've already shown your information to be accurate earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

why would a woman test to see if she was PG if she didnt think she was, other than if she was TRYING to get PG
and how many actually would start to think that exactly 4 weeks after their last period, they might just be a few days late


----------



## JBeukema

I forgot the brain waves...


> *2. "Quickening"- 18 weeks*
> *3. Brain wave detected- 6 weeks*
> *4. Heart starts beating- 3 weeks*
> *....*
> [SIZE=+1]The second four weeks of development is a time of extremely rapid and crucial development as the embryo quadruples in size. Its cells are constantly differentiating to form new structures. The brain begins controlling the movement of muscles and organs. The brain waves can be detected and recorded.[/SIZE]


Fetal Development Presentation



> *Week 6:* Brain            waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are            forming.



Perhaps this is where he got confused- fingernails versus fingerprints?
Bergel, Gary (Produced by NRLC)  	"When      You Were Formed in Secret." 1998.
 Flanagan,  Geraldine Lux.       Beginning Life.  The Marvelous Journey from Conception to Birth.       New York: DK Publishing Inc., 1996.
Hopson, Janet L.  Fetal      Psychology.  Oct. 1998.  07 Jan 2003.
 Fetal Psychology.


http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html






> *Day 40*: Brain waves can be detected and recorded.


Overview: Fetal Development | Pregnancy.org


----------



## KittenKoder

DiveCon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> garyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very few women make the automatic assumption that they are pregnant until about the sixth week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you assuming, or do you have a source you plan to cite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And very few test for pregnancy until they begin to believe they might actually be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, do you have a national poll or something, or is this just your opinion? You've already shown your information to be accurate earlier in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would a woman test to see if she was PG if she didnt think she was, other than if she was TRYING to get PG
> and how many actually would start to think that exactly 4 weeks after their last period, they might just be a few days late
Click to expand...


If more of us were responsible and actually thought things through it wouldn't be a big problem.


----------



## DiveCon

KittenKoder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you assuming, or do you have a source you plan to cite?
> 
> 
> Again, do you have a national poll or something, or is this just your opinion? You've already shown your information to be accurate earlier in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> why would a woman test to see if she was PG if she didnt think she was, other than if she was TRYING to get PG
> and how many actually would start to think that exactly 4 weeks after their last period, they might just be a few days late
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If more of us were responsible and actually thought things through it wouldn't be a big problem.
Click to expand...

well, there ya go
assuming they actually THINK before they do things


----------



## KittenKoder

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would a woman test to see if she was PG if she didnt think she was, other than if she was TRYING to get PG
> and how many actually would start to think that exactly 4 weeks after their last period, they might just be a few days late
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If more of us were responsible and actually thought things through it wouldn't be a big problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well, there ya go
> assuming they actually THINK before they do things
Click to expand...


Welcome to America ... where one of two people will now tell you how to live and think:

The preacher or the lab coat.


----------



## 007

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to know at what age we are deemed worthy of rights...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're old enough to vote for a Democrat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what age we are deemed unworthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you're old enough to be called 'conservative'
Click to expand...


So... I think I got this straight... you start a thread sounding like a Christian conservative in favor of life for the unborn, but then you purport people that vote for abortions are worthy, and the people that vote AGAINST them, as your thread was in favor of... ARE NOT?

WTF? ...


----------



## JBeukema

wow.. that went right over PR's head....

of course, seeing as the idiot just called me  a Christian conservative, I'm not surprised he's unable to comprehend- well, anything


----------



## Contessa_Sharra

xsited1 said:


> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly. They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners. I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.


 

The history of abortion is actually quite long, History of abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the truth is that _"HISTORY"_ just does not really care. 

Perhaps when OUR culture figures out that humans cannot spend their lives humping like bunnies with absolutely no thought for reliable conscientous contraception the issue will find resolution. Unfortunately, the anti-abortion crowd seems to also be anti-contraception.


----------



## mal

KittenKoder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> If more of us were responsible and actually thought things through it wouldn't be a big problem.
> 
> 
> 
> well, there ya go
> assuming they actually THINK before they do things
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to America ... where one of two people will now tell you how to live and think:
> 
> The preacher or the lab coat.
Click to expand...


How can you Leave out the Politicians and Judges?...



peace...


----------



## KittenKoder

tha malcontent said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, there ya go
> assuming they actually THINK before they do things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to America ... where one of two people will now tell you how to live and think:
> 
> The preacher or the lab coat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you Leave out the Politicians and Judges?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Who do they get their advice from?


----------



## mal

KittenKoder said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to America ... where one of two people will now tell you how to live and think:
> 
> The preacher or the lab coat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you Leave out the Politicians and Judges?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do they get their advice from?
Click to expand...


Good Point...



peace...


----------



## 007

JBeukema said:


> wow.. that went right over PR's head....
> 
> of course, seeing as the idiot just called me  a Christian conservative, I'm not surprised he's unable to comprehend- well, anything



Well here's an idea jerk off.... if it was some kind of piss warm, sophomoric humor... then explain it. I'm not in the habit of thinking on such immature levels.


----------



## KittenKoder

Pale Rider said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow.. that went right over PR's head....
> 
> of course, seeing as the idiot just called me  a Christian conservative, I'm not surprised he's unable to comprehend- well, anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well here's an idea jerk off.... if it was some kind of piss warm, sophomoric humor... then explain it. I'm not in the habit of thinking on such immature levels.
Click to expand...


Worry not ... JB fails so much at abstract thought that I doubt he will be able to explain it to people who do think.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to America ... where one of two people will now tell you how to live and think:
> 
> The preacher or the lab coat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you Leave out the Politicians and Judges?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do they get their advice from?
Click to expand...


The company with the biggest bank account? 



Pale Rider said:


> Well here's an idea jerk off.... if it was some kind of piss warm, sophomoric humor... then explain it.




You are truly dense



> I'm not in the habit of thinking on such immature levels.


I'm not in the habit of thinking 

(since KK's too stupid to understand basic rules of quotation and the fact that Gunny said  standard editorial techniques for partial quotations were fine )

Aint that the truth? You can just stop right there- it's accurate enough as is


----------



## KittenKoder

*wonders if JB missed that thread about quoting*


----------



## JBeukema

*wonders how stupid the little kat can be to not realize that nothing was changed*

If you weren't such a stupid little ****, you'd see that I made it clear that I was quoted a partial sentence '...'


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> *wonders how stupid the little kat can be to not realize that nothing was changed*
> 
> If you weren't such a stupid little ****, you'd see that I made it clear that I was quoted a partial sentence '...'



A partial quote where the context and intent was altered because of excluding a portion of it is the exact same thing as modifying what was posted. You saw what Gunny announced, we are going to be strict. If the meaning of the quote is changed, that counts as altering it.


----------



## G.T.

I hate this fucking issue, seriously. 

Call me a schitzo, but I'm for both sides of the issue and so.........*kill myself*

aha. Wow.


----------



## KittenKoder

G.T. said:


> I hate this fucking issue, seriously.
> 
> Call me a schitzo, but I'm for both sides of the issue and so.........*kill myself*
> 
> aha. Wow.



Welcome to the independents ... we are glad to have you. 

I feel the same way, there are times when abortion is not only valid but also a better choice, and many times when it's just wrong.


----------



## G.T.

KittenKoder said:


> Welcome to the independents ... we are glad to have you.
> 
> I feel the same way, there are times when abortion is not only valid but also a better choice, and many times when it's just wrong.




Yea I mean, I can't imagine being raped by some grotesque, fat, sweatty, possibly disfigured man (if I were a girl, lol); who subdues me and puts his most disgusting part into me, along with his bodily fluid, and then people expecting me to have his baby/carry it to term/etc.?!?!?! FFFFAAWWWkkkkkk that. If this guy is some sort of psychotic scumbag, perhaps the baby would inherit that and be a detriment to this Earth, wholly and forever. 

A 16-year old, on the other hand, should have the baby always. I don't really have sympathy for the Responsibility-excuse, she can grow up really fast or seek adopting, loving parents.


----------



## KittenKoder

G.T. said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the independents ... we are glad to have you.
> 
> I feel the same way, there are times when abortion is not only valid but also a better choice, and many times when it's just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I mean, I can't imagine being raped by some grotesque, fat, sweatty, possibly disfigured man (if I were a girl, lol); who subdues me and puts his most disgusting part into me, along with his bodily fluid, and then people expecting me to have his baby/carry it to term/etc.?!?!?! FFFFAAWWWkkkkkk that. If this guy is some sort of psychotic scumbag, perhaps the baby would inherit that and be a detriment to this Earth, wholly and forever.
> 
> A 16-year old, on the other hand, should have the baby always. I don't really have sympathy for the Responsibility-excuse, she can grow up really fast or seek adopting, loving parents.
Click to expand...


Definitely, but I wouldn't let the 16 year old raise the child for many reasons, adoption, but make them carry it as their punishment. After that I truly doubt they would make that mistake again, and if they did at least you know they are getting their own punishment.

The rape thing, I think should be the choice of the victim. There are other medical reasons to, and many anti-abortionists would rather let them both die ... which is plain stupid.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> Definitely, but I wouldn't let the 16 year old raise the child for many reasons,



So you believe in stealing someone's child for no valid reason... 


> adoption, but make them carry it as their punishment.


Very interesting, the way you think- you don't give a damn about the child, yet you want to punish the girl and view the baby as a means of achieving that.



> many anti-abortionists would rather let them both die ....


Now you're just lying.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely, but I wouldn't let the 16 year old raise the child for many reasons,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in stealing someone's child for no valid reason...
> 
> 
> 
> adoption, but make them carry it as their punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very interesting, the way you think- you don't give a damn about the child, yet you want to punish the girl and view the baby as a means of achieving that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many anti-abortionists would rather let them both die ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just lying.
Click to expand...


Projection is strong in this one.

1. Many anti-abortionists would rather both the mother and child die than allow an abortion to at least save the mother's life if both are in danger, or if just the mother's life is in danger more anti-abortionists would rather the mother die than allow an abortion. Note the important word "many" ... and I know a few on here that fit that as well.

2. It's not stealing babies. Traditionally offspring were raised by tribes, not single parents, especially not by parents that already proved to be irresponsible. Some of the best parents were those who adopt, because they wanted to raise the child ... while many who get abortions as a means of birth control would not want to raise the child in the first place, and even if they did want to, a 16 year old is not a valid parent ... they still need their own parents to tell them what to do.

3. When you accuse someone of being dishonest, you must show proof they are, otherwise it is you who is being dishonest, not them.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> Projection is strong in this one.



Thus you speak yet more of your lies



> 1. Many anti-abortionists would rather both the mother and child die than allow an abortion to at least save the mother's life



Demonstrate these masses



> 2. It's not stealing babies. Traditionally offspring were raised by tribes, not single parents



'traditionally' is a meaningless word, as you can cite numerous traditions to support anything you want to say. Also,. an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, and you've yet to show any valid reason for taking her child.



> especially not by parents that already proved to be irresponsible.



No such thing has occurred. You and GT simply said 16-years olds; you didn't say anything about whether she had been shown to e irresponsible,. Try to back peddle like you usually do, but everyone ca red what you said.



> Some of the best parents were those who adopt,


Completely irrelevant


> even if they did want to, a 16 year old is not a valid parent ... they still need their own parents to tell them what to do.



Really? You know this for a fact? Perhaps you've forgotten that in many of the same 'traditions' you alluded to earlier, a 16-year-old girl was usually a mother already, having been wed years before. Just because you were an irresponsible fuckup at sixteen doesn't mean that everyone is, and it highlights your arrogance and generally shitty persona that you assume everyone who's 16 is the way you were.


----------



## JBeukema

By the way, I noticed you conveniently sidestepped my observation about you expressing no concern for the child, but making it clear that you view forcing a girl to have a child as a good punishment to teach her to keep her legs shut. I have to apologize to liability, now- you just proved that he was right when he said such pieces of shit existed who thought like you do.


----------



## AllieBaba

G.T. said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the independents ... we are glad to have you.
> 
> I feel the same way, there are times when abortion is not only valid but also a better choice, and many times when it's just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I mean, I can't imagine being raped by some grotesque, fat, sweatty, possibly disfigured man (if I were a girl, lol); who subdues me and puts his most disgusting part into me, along with his bodily fluid, and then people expecting me to have his baby/carry it to term/etc.?!?!?! FFFFAAWWWkkkkkk that. If this guy is some sort of psychotic scumbag, perhaps the baby would inherit that and be a detriment to this Earth, wholly and forever.
> 
> A 16-year old, on the other hand, should have the baby always. I don't really have sympathy for the Responsibility-excuse, she can grow up really fast or seek adopting, loving parents.
Click to expand...


Rape victims count for approximately zero percent of women seeking abortions.


----------



## AllieBaba

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely, but I wouldn't let the 16 year old raise the child for many reasons,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in stealing someone's child for no valid reason...
> Very interesting, the way you think- you don't give a damn about the child, yet you want to punish the girl and view the baby as a means of achieving that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many anti-abortionists would rather let them both die ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projection is strong in this one.
> 
> 1. Many anti-abortionists would rather both the mother and child die than allow an abortion to at least save the mother's life if both are in danger, or if just the mother's life is in danger more anti-abortionists would rather the mother die than allow an abortion. Note the important word "many" ... and I know a few on here that fit that as well.
> 
> 2. It's not stealing babies. Traditionally offspring were raised by tribes, not single parents, especially not by parents that already proved to be irresponsible. Some of the best parents were those who adopt, because they wanted to raise the child ... while many who get abortions as a means of birth control would not want to raise the child in the first place, and even if they did want to, a 16 year old is not a valid parent ... they still need their own parents to tell them what to do.
> 
> 3. When you accuse someone of being dishonest, you must show proof they are, otherwise it is you who is being dishonest, not them.
Click to expand...


You are so full of shit. Find one link where a pro-lifer has advocated death for the baby and the mother in medical emergent cases. ONE LINK. Surely you can pull one out of your ass.


----------



## JBeukema

All sources I'm seeing erape and incest as 1% of abortions
Abortion Statistics
Abortion Statistics by U.S. State, Race, Age and Worldwide Statistics


Some other stats I've found, but which are less confirmed



> So of real pregnant rape victims, only 15% chose abortion.


Abortion Cures Rape


----------



## JBeukema

> the Alan Guttmacher Institute conducted a survey of women who were getting abortions, asking why they had made this decision. They received responses from 1900 women at 27 abortion "clinics" and 3 hospitals. The results were printed in _Family Planning Perspectives_, Planned Parenthood's magazine.  Both the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood are pro-abortion, so it is fair to suspect that there may be a "pro-choice" bias to the study. Additional bias may be suspected from the nature of the survey: It is fair to ask if a woman who is getting an abortion for less-than-earthshaking reasons might not exagerrate or even invent justifications in order to make her decision sound more justified. Nevertheless, the results of their study are interesting. The following text and numbers are taken from the chart in _Family Planning Perspectives_, July/August 1988 issue, page 170:
> Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life     16% Woman can't afford baby now     21% Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood     12% Woman is unready for responsibility     21% Woman doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant     1% Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child     11% Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children     8% Husband or partner wants woman to have an abortion     1% Fetus has possible health problem     3% Woman has health problem     3% Woman's parents want her to have abortion     <1%  Woman was victim of rape or incest     1% Other     3%
> (Totals do not add to 100% because of rounding.)



Why Women Have Abortions



The highest number I could find is 7%. This figure, higher than the abortion industry's (which should have the highest, to make their case) is from a religious site


----------



## G.T.

Then I one, or zero, percent am pro-choice.


----------



## JBeukema

G.T. said:


> Then I one, or zero, percent am pro-choice.


What about my choice to kill my kid the day after it's born? the day before? week before/ the day before that?

What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that? 
What about the day before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?
What about the second before that?



5 years old? 4? 3? 2? 1? 2 days? 1 day? 10 second? halfway out?


Hmm? At what millisecond does something do fundamental change that it's suddenly wrong?


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> All sources I'm seeing erape and incest as 1% of abortions
> Abortion Statistics
> Abortion Statistics by U.S. State, Race, Age and Worldwide Statistics
> 
> 
> Some other stats I've found, but which are less confirmed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So of real pregnant rape victims, only 15% chose abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion Cures Rape
Click to expand...


15 percent of like one half of one percent.

I actually think it's lower. Anyway, it's approximately zero percent.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> I actually think it's lower. .


These are the highest numbers I could find, so as to make as strong a case for the anti=-lifers as possible... Like I said, the abortion industry itself says 1% and the only higher estimate I found was a random church.


----------



## G.T.

JBeukema said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I one, or zero, percent am pro-choice.
> 
> 
> 
> What about my choice to kill my kid the day after it's born? the day before? week before/ the day before that?
> 
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the day before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> What about the second before that?
> 
> 
> 
> 5 years old? 4? 3? 2? 1? 2 days? 1 day? 10 second? halfway out?
> 
> 
> Hmm? At what millisecond does something do fundamental change that it's suddenly wrong?
Click to expand...


I only support pro-choice if the sexual act that created the offspring was NOT voluntary with both partners. Did you get raped? I don't support it on any day, if not.


----------



## JBeukema

G.T. said:


> I only support pro-choice if the sexual act that created the offspring was NOT voluntary with both partners. Did you get raped? I don't support it on any day, if not.


Demonstrate how person A assaulting person B justifies person B killing person C

If such a loophole is allowed, women will simply lie.

Just like they did in front of SCOTUS and just like PP tells them to when they're too young under the current law


----------



## tigerbob

AllieBaba said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in stealing someone's child for no valid reason...
> Very interesting, the way you think- you don't give a damn about the child, yet you want to punish the girl and view the baby as a means of achieving that.
> 
> Now you're just lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projection is strong in this one.
> 
> 1. Many anti-abortionists would rather both the mother and child die than allow an abortion to at least save the mother's life if both are in danger, or if just the mother's life is in danger more anti-abortionists would rather the mother die than allow an abortion. Note the important word "many" ... and I know a few on here that fit that as well.
> 
> 2. It's not stealing babies. Traditionally offspring were raised by tribes, not single parents, especially not by parents that already proved to be irresponsible. Some of the best parents were those who adopt, because they wanted to raise the child ... while many who get abortions as a means of birth control would not want to raise the child in the first place, and even if they did want to, a 16 year old is not a valid parent ... they still need their own parents to tell them what to do.
> 
> 3. When you accuse someone of being dishonest, you must show proof they are, otherwise it is you who is being dishonest, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so full of shit. Find one link where a pro-lifer has advocated death for the baby and the mother in medical emergent cases. ONE LINK. Surely you can pull one out of your ass.
Click to expand...


That's one I hear frequently, but I will say I have never actually read anything where the death of the mother has been advocated to save the baby under the circumstances we are discussing.  I wonder whether it's an urban legend.


----------



## G.T.

jbeukema said:


> g.t. said:
> 
> 
> 
> i only support pro-choice if the sexual act that created the offspring was not voluntary with both partners. Did you get raped? I don't support it on any day, if not.
> 
> 
> 
> demonstrate how person a assaulting person b justifies person b killing person c
> 
> if such a loophole is allowed, women will simply lie.
> 
> Just like they did in front of scotus and just like pp tells them to when they're too young under the current law
Click to expand...


i'm not a believer in some, ruining rights/whatever for others. I think it's doo-doo, crap, shit, etc. 

Person a's "offspring" being forced upon person b is barbaric. The mental anguish person b-faces is exascerbated by bringing that offspring to term, and eventually seeing it, and person a's face in it either for its life, or before adoption procedures are implemented. 

Pregnancy is also no walk in the park, and shouldn't be legally "forced" on anyone who didn't choose to act, sexually. That's not ok with me. 

Further than that, doesn't require my brain cells. Call me "cold" or whatever but i don't blame the rape victim, itr was the rapist who created the situation to begin with.


----------



## AllieBaba

I think the majority of the tiny handful of women who actually become pregnant as a result of rape overwhelmingly choose to have the baby.


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> I think the majority of the tiny handful of women who actually become pregnant as a result of rape overwhelmingly choose to have the baby.



tHAT'S ALRIGHT, SO LONG AS THEY HAD A CHOICE. JUST IN MY OPINION, OF COURSE.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> I think the majority of the tiny handful of women who actually become pregnant as a result of rape overwhelmingly choose to have the baby.


As cited above, only 15% of women who got regnant through rape chose to 'abort' the child's life

GT's never heard adoption, apparently, or known a woman who;s aborted, or a woman who had a child through rape. 

'
Human life > 'mental anguish' for 9 months


----------



## G.T.

JBeukema said:


> As cited above, only 15% of women who got regnant through rape chose to 'abort' the child's life
> 
> GT's never heard adoption, apparently, or known a woman who;s aborted, or a woman who had a child through rape.
> 
> '
> Human life > 'mental anguish' for 9 months



UMM..try to know GT before you go proclaiming who I've apparently known in life. Just sayin, because in the eyes of the person who actually knows these things you just might sound ignorant on the issue of me-not-knowing. Aight? 

You can have your view, and it does not offend me. Not at all, and I simply just don't think it's at all unreasonable to abort the bi-product of a rape, which is not even sentient to know what the hell life even is, was, or could have been. 

Yes, fyi, I know rape victims. Yes, plural. No, I will not elaborate. 

They are harmed for life, not 9 months.


----------



## JBeukema

And you would have them add to their anguish the knowledge of their deeds


----------



## G.T.

JBeukema said:


> And you would have them add to their anguish the knowledge of their deeds




I would have them make their own bed, to lie in, so to speak and not have others legislate how they feel about it because they're not wearing the same pair of shoes.


----------



## joeyc

It's funny when liberals debate abortion, because it always reminds me of the gay marriage debate. Liberals will argue till they're blue in the face about the unconstitutionality of DOMA, and that there is some mandate for it (written on the back of a paper in invisible ink) in the Constitution. 

But then, when you bring up abortion, and mention the purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is to state the goals and purposes of government, primary of which is to outline what protections your LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY have, and that mere matters of convenience (especially when it comes to consensual acts) alone aren't important enough to abridge that TRULY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, they start bitching and whining about autonomy and choice. Please.


----------



## JBeukema

DoMA is unconstitutional; what are you talking about, a 'mandate'?

Once again, I'll thank you not to confuse modern statists, collectivists, neoliberals, libertines, and pseudo-socialists with liberal principles.


----------



## joeyc

Yeah, you're right. It's unconstitutional. Only liberals with their awesome gadgets that can read invisible ink can see it, though. The rest of us weren't issued ours.


----------



## JBeukema

What in the blue *hell* are you babbling about?


----------



## Gurdari

JBeukema said:


> Why must they constantly lie? They lied to SCOTUS about two women being raped, thereby spitting in the faces of all real rape victims to push their money-making libertine agenda. They tel bald lies (ravi and Anguille come to mind) about forcing women to carry when it'll kill them. They lie about the scientifically verified *fact *that a fetus is a human life, being both alive and human. They lie about the fact that a rape victim can take Plan B to prevent a pregnancy in the first place and that very few abortions involve rape and incest. they lie to women about their being pregnant and the development of the child inside them and rail against showing them sonograms or informing them about fetal development or adoption.
> 
> 
> Why must they base their entire case on lies if they support a 'good thing'?




So, which side of the debate is allowed to be genralized? Both?
You could make a post about PRO-lifers and how they murder doctors... but that would be a retarded generalization.


ANTI-lifers (nice term) may actually be better described as 'pro-sovereignty' over the body - sort of a libertarian ideal, maybe. 

Like "I have control over my body and anything inside it/part of it - so F*ck you" if that makes sense.

If you want to have a chat about what I am allowed to do with my own body - we would likely have a problem. Perhaps those on the other side of the debate can submit to others their own rights over their body - and we can leave it at that?


Boiled down - you cannot discuss what to do with the fetus without infringing on the Mother's 'sovereignty over her person'.


----------



## JBeukema

Gurdari said:


> ANTI-lifers (nice term) may actually be better described as 'pro-sovereignty' over the body - sort of a libertarian ideal, maybe.



Wrong, moron. We're not talking about their bodies.



> Like "I have control over my body and anything inside it/part of it - so F*ck you" if that makes sense.



Not if that which is inside of it is another human being.



> If you want to have a chat about what I am allowed to do with my own body - we would likely have a problem.



Here you continue with the anti-lifer lies and red herrings, which were all debunked some time ago. Thank you for proving the OP to be accurate


----------



## Gurdari

JBeukema said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANTI-lifers (nice term) may actually be better described as 'pro-sovereignty' over the body - sort of a libertarian ideal, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron. We're not talking about their bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like "I have control over my body and anything inside it/part of it - so F*ck you" if that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if that which is inside of it is another human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to have a chat about what I am allowed to do with my own body - we would likely have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you continue with the anti-lifer lies and red herrings, which were all debunked some time ago. Thank you for proving the OP to be accurate
Click to expand...



It seemed like we were discussing abortion. Sorry if we not.

However, if we WERE... then people bodies (the ones carrying the fetus/child/etc.) would be relevant, no?

And why would one lose their 'sovereignty' if another bieng was inside them? 

Also, if there are red-herrings and lies - point them out, rhetoric only works when you have a brain-dead press corps in front of you.


----------



## joeyc

JBeukema said:


> What in the blue *hell* are you babbling about?



I can see your sarcasm detector isn't on so I'll make it simpler for you: DoMA is constitutional, and abortion isn't.


----------



## JBeukema

One has no sovereignty over another's life.


----------



## mal

joeyc said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the blue *hell* are you babbling about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see your sarcasm detector isn't on so I'll make it simpler for you: DoMA is constitutional, and abortion isn't.
Click to expand...


Yep...



peace...


----------



## JBeukema

joeyc said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the blue *hell* are you babbling about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see your sarcasm detector isn't on so I'll make it simpler for you: DoMA is constitutional, and abortion isn't.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. DoMA is unconstitutional. For one thing, the Fed isn't given authority over the legal recognition by the States of personal relationships or family structure. For two, it violates the principles of equality and the right ton enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults (9th amendment).

It's perfectly constitutional for the Fed to take measures against abortion as an extension of federal laws against homicide.


----------



## Gurdari

JBeukema said:


> One has no sovereignty over another's life.



Well... if that life cannot exist without being part of them physically, and is ACTUALLY part of another being's body, that is different than you or I having control over each other's lives.

I think you have to decide - do people have rights over their own bodies or not? If not - then the fetus/child doesn't either. If they do, then leave the Mother alone to make her decisions.


----------



## mal

JBeukema said:


> One has no sovereignty over another's life.



It's not a Life... It's a Pesky Fetus that's Burdening and Inconveniencing a Woman...



peace...


----------



## JBeukema

Gurdari said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> One has no sovereignty over another's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... if that life cannot exist without being part of them physically, *and is ACTUALLY part of another being's body*, that is different than you or I having control over each other's lives.
Click to expand...


The bold simply isn't true./ Ther is no room for debate on this, as science has already demonstrated that the child is a distinct human organism. Therefore, even if we were to accept your argument for the sake of argument, your own requisite conditions are not met.

Your fail, moron.


----------



## JBeukema

tha malcontent said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> One has no sovereignty over another's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a Life... It's a Pesky Fetus that's Burdening and Inconveniencing a Woman...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...



get your tongue out of your damn cheek


----------



## joeyc

JBeukema said:


> joeyc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the blue *hell* are you babbling about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see your sarcasm detector isn't on so I'll make it simpler for you: DoMA is constitutional, and abortion isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. DoMA is unconstitutional. For one thing, the Fed isn't given authority over the legal recognition by the States of personal relationships or family structure. For two, it violates the principles of equality and the right ton enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults (9th amendment).
> 
> It's perfectly constitutional for the Fed to take measures against abortion as an extension of federal laws against homicide.
Click to expand...


DoMA doesn't preclude states from recognizing gay couples as married, as evidenced by the six states that have already legalized it. Saying there's a "right to enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults" is a fancy way of saying they have a "right to be a couple", which is a novel legal concept trumped up by liberals, not to mention this "legally binding contracts" thing doesn't restrict them from entering into PRIVATE contracts (they can still jointly own property, back accounts, etc). 

I don't understand the part about abortion. I think we agree, but I'm not sure yet.


----------



## JBeukema

joeyc said:


> DoMA doesn't preclude states from recognizing gay couples as married, as evidenced by the six states that have already legalized it.



It does, however, serve to prevent the Fed from recognizing them, based on the sex of the parties involved.




> Saying there's a "right to enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults" is a fancy way of saying they have a "right to be a couple", which is a novel legal concept trumped up by liberals, not to mention this "legally binding contracts" thing doesn't restrict them from entering into PRIVATE contracts (they can still jointly own property, back accounts, etc).



Again, it is blatant sexual discrimination in the recognition of legally binding contracts by the central State. If the Fed is going to recognize such unions, it must recognize them all, in accordance with the fundamental principle of equality before the law upon which this nation is founded. The alternative is to to recognize none at all and keep the Fed out of such matters entirely.

We seem to agree on the other matter.


----------



## xsited1

tigerbob said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read.
Click to expand...


Right.  Fortunately, slaves are now considered human beings and are given full rights (in civilized countries).  Minorities have been given full rights.  Gays and lesbians have numerous laws protecting them.  Next in line are the unborn.  And as I said, I don't believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly (or those who support the pro-choicers).

If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn sounds like a very serious sin to me.  I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.


----------



## joeyc

JBeukema said:


> joeyc said:
> 
> 
> 
> DoMA doesn't preclude states from recognizing gay couples as married, as evidenced by the six states that have already legalized it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does, however, serve to prevent the Fed from recognizing them, based on the sex of the parties involved.
Click to expand...


It's not an entity apart from the federal government. The federal government (at the time of its passing) didn't want to recognize gay couples as being married. Again, "parties involved" is another way of sneaking "couples' rights" into the debate. The text says, for federal purposes, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.



> Saying there's a "right to enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults" is a fancy way of saying they have a "right to be a couple", which is a novel legal concept trumped up by liberals, not to mention this "legally binding contracts" thing doesn't restrict them from entering into PRIVATE contracts (they can still jointly own property, back accounts, etc).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is blatant sexual discrimination in the recognition of legally binding contracts by the central State. If the Fed is going to recognize such unions, it must recognize them all, in accordance with the fundamental principle of equality before the law upon which this nation is founded. The alternative is to to recognize none at all and keep the Fed out of such matters entirely.
> 
> We seem to agree on the other matter.
Click to expand...


You can talk around it all you want. You're still basically saying, "DoMA is unconstitutional because gay couples aren't being treated the same as straight couples." Newsflash: they don't HAVE to treat all couples the same. This country has never had that broad an understanding of marriage. The Constitution is meant to protect people's life, liberty, and property. Under DoMA (and any of the ancillary DoMAs passed by the states), no gay individual (or couple, for that matter) is threatened with losing their lives, their freedom, or their property in a court of law. You can say it's bad policy to not include gay couples, but you can't say it's unconstitutional for the federal government to show discretion in who it gives incentives to.


----------



## JBeukema

joeyc said:


> The text says, for federal purposes, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.[/qupote]
> 
> Which is to introduce sexual discrimination nito the legal recognition of the marriage contract, simply because some ignorant, uneducated, homophobic christians felt afraid that their kids might turn gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can talk around it all you want. You're still basically saying, "DoMA is unconstitutional because gay couples aren't being treated the same as straight couples." Newsflash: they don't HAVE to treat all couples the same.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, they do, as do the States. Remember when SCOTUS struck down laws against interracial marriage? The underlying principle is the same and the precedent was then set for the equal legal recognition of personal contracts, which is all marriage ultimately its in the eyes of the law..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country has never had that broad an understanding of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor of 'people', but we've moved past that. To cite past intolerance, hatred, fear, and discrimination doesn't justify continuing these policies, but highlights the very struggle to get rid of them in order to work towards the principles this nation was founded on, most importantly equality before the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is meant to protect people's life, liberty, and property. Under DoMA (and any of the ancillary DoMAs passed by the states), no gay individual (or couple, for that matter) is threatened with losing their lives, their freedom, or their property in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution protects more than that, as the BoR was passed to demonstrate. Both the 9th Amendment and thereprinciple upon which this entire nation was built make it clear that such discrimination cannot be tolerated. Wither all such contracts are recognized equally, or none are nd the Fed stays out of peoples' relationships altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can say it's bad policy to not include gay couples, but you can't say it's unconstitutional for the federal government to show discretion in who it gives incentives to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I can, and yes it is. Just like laws against interracial marriages were struck down and suffrage was extended to Blacks and women, it has been long recognized that America is founded on equality before the law ad either all citizens are equal; or none are. If such incentives are to be offered for persons involved in such contracts, then they must be available to all who are involved in such contracts. The alternative is to offer no such incentives and keep the government out of the matter entirely./
Click to expand...


----------



## joeyc

This is getting longer and longer...



JBeukema said:


> joeyc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text says, for federal purposes, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.[/qupote]
> 
> Which is to introduce sexual discrimination nito the legal recognition of the marriage contract, simply because some ignorant, uneducated, homophobic christians felt afraid that their kids might turn gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just your inner libretard talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can talk around it all you want. You're still basically saying, "DoMA is unconstitutional because gay couples aren't being treated the same as straight couples." Newsflash: they don't HAVE to treat all couples the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, they do, as do the States. Remember when SCOTUS struck down laws against interracial marriage? The underlying principle is the same and the precedent was then set for the equal legal recognition of personal contracts, which is all marriage ultimately its in the eyes of the law..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "underlying principle" with interracial marriage being illegal doesn't laterally apply here. Interracial marriage was against the law; people could be arrested for marrying someone of the opposite sex. We've already established there's no such threat with DoMA. Interracial marriage was still one man and one woman, which is the central definition we've agreed on.
> 
> States don't have to treat all couples the same. They never have. Aside from states denying same-sex couples marriage benefits, they don't recognize polygamous couples, bigamists, and pedophilic couples. States even have different ages of consent regarding marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor of 'people', but we've moved past that. To cite past intolerance, hatred, fear, and discrimination doesn't justify continuing these policies, but highlights the very struggle to get rid of them in order to work towards the principles this nation was founded on, most importantly equality before the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making the symbolic argument based on past intolerance doesn't justify overturning policy just because of what it signifies. Symbolic ideas like "equality" are great, but 1) you could argue our Founding Fathers never intended marriage to be between two men or two women, and 2) we don't have to make people feel good about any and all of their associations. We have marriage benefits for a reason. Taking the covetous approach ("you got a lollipop...I want one too!" )  doesn't address the whole issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution protects more than that, as the BoR was passed to demonstrate. Both the 9th Amendment and thereprinciple upon which this entire nation was built make it clear that such discrimination cannot be tolerated. Wither all such contracts are recognized equally, or none are nd the Fed stays out of peoples' relationships altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop romanticizing the issue. That's all the Constitution is there to protect, and you keep acting like all we have to go on is principle. We also have precedence. You keep saying "equality", but really you're just talking about sameness. There is no promise of that, other than one you've idealized. The government has an interest in incentivizing some things and not others. It's showing discretion on how it spends its money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can say it's bad policy to not include gay couples, but you can't say it's unconstitutional for the federal government to show discretion in who it gives incentives to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I can, and yes it is. Just like laws against interracial marriages were struck down and suffrage was extended to Blacks and women, it has been long recognized that America is founded on equality before the law ad either all citizens are equal; or none are. If such incentives are to be offered for persons involved in such contracts, then they must be available to all who are involved in such contracts. The alternative is to offer no such incentives and keep the government out of the matter entirely./
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're presenting a false dilemma. There is no either/or here. Simply mentioning equality in whatever amorphous context you're using it doesn't justify why gay couples should receive these benefits. If there is some overarching purpose behind it, that is based on what is good policy. It has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Click to expand...


----------



## JBeukema

joeyc said:


> That's just your inner libretard talking.


And now we see the intelligence and depth of reasoning characteristic of right-wing politics, oto which you evidently adhere when it omes to this issue. When unable to actually refute the points I have made, and simultaneously unable to overcome your own bigotry, you seek to find some label to stick on me in order to enable yourself to merely attack an artificial target. These tactics are discussed in Avatar's thread, beginning with post 13.



> The "underlying principle" with interracial marriage being illegal doesn't laterally apply here. Interracial marriage was against the law; people could be arrested for marrying someone of the opposite sex. We've already established there's no such threat with DoMA. Interracial marriage was still one man and one woman, which is the central definition we've agreed on.



Who is 'we'? Interracial marriage was struck down because Scotus recognized that it is unconstitutional and contrary the American principles to discriminated based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc in the recognition of legal contract. Those who seek to enforce things like DoMA are no different than those who opposed interracial marriage, and they ultimately make the same arguments for the same reasons.




> States don't have to treat all couples the same. They never have


Not did they treat all people the same.. Once again, citing past wrongs does not justify them, but highlight that such bigotry has been struck down in the past because it is contrary to the very principles on which America was founded and contained within the Constitution.



> Making the symbolic argument based on past intolerance doesn't justify overturning policy just because of what it signifies.


When it signifies that the law is based on bigotry and discrimination and is contrary to what America stands for, it does.



> Symbolic ideas like "equality" are great, but 1) you could argue our Founding Fathers never intended marriage to be between two men or two women,



Nor did they intend to consider Blacks human. Once, again you appeal to past wrong to justify current ones. You're a one-note trick, and your words ring as hollow as your head.



> and 2) we don't have to make people feel good about any and all of their associations. We have marriage benefits for a reason. Taking the covetous approach ("you got a lollipop...I want one too!" )  doesn't address the whole issue.



The issue is simple: legal recognition of a contract between persons. That's all it boils down to.




> Stop romanticizing the issue. That's all the Constitution is there to protect, and you keep acting like all we have to go on is principle. We also have precedence.


An I have shown that precedence to be shutting up bigots and working towards real equality.



> You're presenting a false dilemma. There is no either/or here


yes, there is. Equality before the law works like that. Either offer incentives or do not. That you say any matter of federal law 'has nothing to do with the constitution' shows that you have no respect for or grounding in American principles or the Constitution itself. You're just another would-be tyrant from the right-wing who wishes to legislate your own bigotry.


----------



## Gurdari

JBeukema said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> One has no sovereignty over another's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... if that life cannot exist without being part of them physically, *and is ACTUALLY part of another being's body*, that is different than you or I having control over each other's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bold simply isn't true./ Ther is no room for debate on this, as science has already demonstrated that the child is a distinct human organism. Therefore, even if we were to accept your argument for the sake of argument, your own requisite conditions are not met.
> 
> Your fail, moron.
Click to expand...


Sorry - the child is a distinct human organism in one sense, but if you sever its connection to the Mother, it cannot survive on its own, a fetus needs *and is part of *the Mother's body.

So, if the Mother smokes crack - her entire body and all that is a part of it are affected. Did science not prove that as well?

(you can engage in name calling, but is there really a point?)


----------



## JBeukema

Gurdari said:


> Sorry - the child is a distinct human organism in one sense, but if you sever its connection to the Mother, it cannot survive on its own



And if I fling you into space, you cannot survive on your own- does that make you and Earth part of the same organism? 

It's a parasitic relationship between two organisms, you twit. Do learn some basic biology. This is not difficult subject matter.


> a fetus needs *and is part of *the Mother's body.


How many times must I explain this?


----------



## Diuretic

The science can tell us what we know, objectively, about the foetus.  But science can't make moral judgements for us, that's up to us.


----------



## joeyc

JBeukema said:


> joeyc said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just your inner libretard talking.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we see the intelligence and depth of reasoning characteristic of right-wing politics, oto which you evidently adhere when it omes to this issue. When unable to actually refute the points I have made, and simultaneously unable to overcome your own bigotry, you seek to find some label to stick on me in order to enable yourself to merely attack an artificial target. These tactics are discussed in Avatar's thread, beginning with post 13.
Click to expand...


I could refute the "points" (see: baseless insults) you made, but what's the point? I've been around the block enough times to know when people start with the whole "stupid, intolerant, bigoted Christian homophobes are taking people's rights away" (I'm paraphrasing) stuff, they're usually not trying to hear anything close to reason. 



> The "underlying principle" with interracial marriage being illegal doesn't laterally apply here. Interracial marriage was against the law; people could be arrested for marrying someone of the opposite sex. We've already established there's no such threat with DoMA. Interracial marriage was still one man and one woman, which is the central definition we've agreed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is 'we'? Interracial marriage was struck down because Scotus recognized that it is unconstitutional and contrary the American principles to discriminated based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc in the recognition of legal contract. Those who seek to enforce things like DoMA are no different than those who opposed interracial marriage, and they ultimately make the same arguments for the same reasons.
Click to expand...


Unless you have proof that DoMA directly facilities people being locked up, given the death penalty, or having their property confiscated, "we" are in agreement that there's no inherent threat to people's fundamental rights, whereas the former was a threat regarding laws that made it illegal for blacks to marry whites. The Supreme Court didn't "find" that it was "contrary to the American principles" to discriminate on the basis of sex in that ruling; it was only about race. Had they concluded that, gay marriage would've been legalized right along with interracial marriage.

Out of curiosity, are you a native to the U.S.?



> Not did they treat all people the same.. Once again, citing past wrongs does not justify them, but highlight that such bigotry has been struck down in the past because it is contrary to the very principles on which America was founded and contained within the Constitution.



I could've sworn America was founded on the rights of man as an individual, not the rights of groups. I don't consider it bigoted to not actively endorse every association man comes up with.




> When it signifies that the law is based on bigotry and discrimination and is contrary to what America stands for, it does.



There's no consensus that this applies to DoMA. In fact, the consensus is the exact opposite.



> Nor did they intend to consider Blacks human. Once, again you appeal to past wrong to justify current ones. You're a one-note trick, and your words ring as hollow as your head.



No, you'd be the one-trick pony. Analogizing this issue with bigotry -- no matter how tenuous the analogy -- doesn't actually make it bigotry. You're the one who keeps blathering on about "principles", as if that's all we have to go on. Blacks _were_ denied their basic human rights. You're trying to juxtapose that with "gay couples" being denied basic human rights, when the entire notion of couples' rights is a legal concept introduced to defend gay marriage. "All men are created equal" can obviously apply to Blacks. It doesn't obviously apply to abstract pairings, or "couples". 



> The issue is simple: legal recognition of a contract between persons. That's all it boils down to.



Yeah, because you're a liberal who doesn't know how to think for himself. You're just spouting talking points. You don't care about any kind of substantive debate.



> Stop romanticizing the issue. That's all the Constitution is there to protect, and you keep acting like all we have to go on is principle. We also have precedence.
> 
> 
> 
> An I have shown that precedence to be shutting up bigots and working towards real equality.
Click to expand...


Where did you show that? I must have missed it.



> You're presenting a false dilemma. There is no either/or here
> 
> 
> 
> yes, there is. Equality before the law works like that. Either offer incentives or do not. That you say any matter of federal law 'has nothing to do with the constitution' shows that you have no respect for or grounding in American principles or the Constitution itself. You're just another would-be tyrant from the right-wing who wishes to legislate your own bigotry.
Click to expand...


You sound like a liberal parrot. BARRRRRRACK! EQUALITY! BARRRRRRACK! PRINCIPLES! You don't know anything about the Constitution, and all you want to do is argue based on symbolism and empty rhetoric. I'd rather legislate through my own "bigotry" and adhere to the tenets of the Constitution, rather than legislate through "feelings" and rape it of all its intent like you.


----------



## JBeukema

I never said anything about the 'rights of groups', you twit. All you keep doing is purposefully misrepresenting g my position and repeating the same ignorant bullshit I already refuted and showed to be ignorant bullshit. If all are created equal, then they are to be equal before the law, then they are to have equal rights to enter into and have recognized legal contracts with one another. Of course, you clearly don't believe in equality, so you don't see a problem.

 That all you have is repeating your moronic points, accusing me of 'spouting talking points', and trying to lump me in with some standard target to avoid addressing my point (instead attempting to attack an imaginary target) shows that not only are you an ignorant bigot, you are also dishonest.


----------



## tigerbob

xsited1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Fortunately, slaves are now considered human beings and are given full rights (in civilized countries).  Minorities have been given full rights.  Gays and lesbians have numerous laws protecting them.  Next in line are the unborn.  And as I said, I don't believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly (or those who support the pro-choicers).
> 
> If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn sounds like a very serious sin to me.  I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
Click to expand...


I am a Christian.  I believe in heaven and hell.  I am pro choice up to the point I have already expressed in this thread.  Clearly you think I am guilty of a terrible sin and am going straight to hell.

You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.

Perhaps I could ask you to pray for me?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Yawn...

Homosexuals aren't being discriminated against... the assertion is absurd on it's face.

THERE IS  NOT A SINGLE STATE IN THE US WHEREIN A HOMOSEXUAL IS DISALLOWED FROM APPLYING FOR AND BEING GRANTED A LICENSE TO MARRY ANYONE THEY CAN TALK INTO MARRYING THEM...  As long as they meet the long standing, eminently reasonable standard required for marriage; which is that the TWO ADULT PARTIES REPRESENT THE DISTINCT GENDERS.

Now if ya can't do that, well then you're free to incorporate and enjoy the rights and privileges thereof... don't like that?  Then you're free to set up house and cohabitate... without fear of government reprisal...  

PERIOD!

What the queers want are SPECIAL RIGHTS, to accomodate their SPECIAL NEEDS... and in the process undermine sound cultural standards...  which violates THE RESPONSIBILITY which are intrinsic in their human rights, not to violate the rights of others... in this case the right to establish sound cultural standards... to promote a sound, sustainable culture.

No one is trying to stop the queers from being queer... that is nature's way of culling the unstainable lines from the herd...   But Marriage is a union of TWO people... each representing the distinct GENDERS...  can't handle that simple standard, you've no business being married.

Beyond that, the human fetus is a human life... whoever should conceive such is responsible for that human being's welfare until such time that it is able to sustain itself... thus conception is a VERY BIG DEAL...

Now where one takes it upon themselves to end that human life... except; as is the case in ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE A HUMAN LIFE IS TO BE TAKEN; where there is just moral cause to do so; then that person is committing murder; now that this specific murder has found a temporal legal standing, changes NOTHING.  You have no RIGHT to take the life of another human being, EXCEPT WHERE THAT LIFE IS A DIRECT AND PRESENT THREAT TO YOUR OWN LIFE OR THAT OF ANOTHER IN YOUR IMMEDIATE PRESENCE... and where one is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONCEPTION OF THAT LIFE... it's a fairly tough argument, to rest the responsibility for any threat one may sense, on the part of the life which HAD NO SAY IN THE CONCEPTION...

These aren't complex issues... just well beyond the means of the sub-intellects, typical of the ideological leftist.


----------



## JBeukema

Marriage is a legal contract with legal implications regarding taxes, power of attorney, and other legal ramifications. It is nothing more.

i have found that you can generally know that a given position is completely fucking retarded when PI adopts it.


----------



## joeyc

JBeukema said:


> I never said anything about the 'rights of groups', you twit. All you keep doing is purposefully misrepresenting g my position and repeating the same ignorant bullshit I already refuted and showed to be ignorant bullshit. If all are created equal, then they are to be equal before the law, then they are to have equal rights to enter into and have recognized legal contracts with one another. Of course, you clearly don't believe in equality, so you don't see a problem.
> 
> That all you have is repeating your moronic points, accusing me of 'spouting talking points', and trying to lump me in with some standard target to avoid addressing my point (instead attempting to attack an imaginary target) shows that not only are you an ignorant bigot, you are also dishonest.



I'm not misrepresenting your points...YOU ARE. You haven't shown how the law is unequal, you haven't made any sort of argument relying on the Constitution (just mentioning the 9A doesn't count), and you're relying either on symbolism (which isn't a substantive argument) or novel legal concepts (rights to be a couple). It's obvious to anyone with a brain who the idiot is here, and it's you. 

Just to finish off your dumbass argument: the government has every right to legislate which types of relationships they decide to subsidize. They're completely based on the heterosexual monogamous model of marriage (considering no other form of marriage has ever been widely legal in the U.S.), and there's no Constitutional mandate that we even receive them. Instead of being baselessly covetous, you should ask yourself why we have any regulation on benefits and incentives from the government. Using your mentality, I deserve a G.I. bill, Medicare, WIC vouchers, and farming subsidies just because somebody else gets them.


----------



## Anguille

DiveCon said:


> why would a woman test to see if she was PG if she didnt think she was, other than if she was TRYING to get PG
> and how many actually would start to think that exactly 4 weeks after their last period, they might just be a few days late


Depending on how regular you are, a late period is always a concern for a sexually active woman. No form of birth control is 100% effective.


----------



## Anguille

G.T. said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the independents ... we are glad to have you.
> 
> I feel the same way, there are times when abortion is not only valid but also a better choice, and many times when it's just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I mean, I can't imagine being raped by some grotesque, fat, sweatty, possibly disfigured man (if I were a girl, lol); who subdues me and puts his most disgusting part into me, along with his bodily fluid, and then people expecting me to have his baby/carry it to term/etc.?!?!?! FFFFAAWWWkkkkkk that. If this guy is some sort of psychotic scumbag, perhaps the baby would inherit that and be a detriment to this Earth, wholly and forever.
> 
> A 16-year old, on the other hand, should have the baby always. I don't really have sympathy for the Responsibility-excuse, she can grow up really fast or seek adopting, loving parents.
Click to expand...

Bravo!  That's an excellent way to teach the whore a lesson!!!  Make her go through a pregnancy !!  That's just so smart!! And who gives fuck about the baby and what kind of childhood he has ahead of him/her anyway.


----------



## Anguille

KittenKoder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the independents ... we are glad to have you.
> 
> I feel the same way, there are times when abortion is not only valid but also a better choice, and many times when it's just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I mean, I can't imagine being raped by some grotesque, fat, sweatty, possibly disfigured man (if I were a girl, lol); who subdues me and puts his most disgusting part into me, along with his bodily fluid, and then people expecting me to have his baby/carry it to term/etc.?!?!?! FFFFAAWWWkkkkkk that. If this guy is some sort of psychotic scumbag, perhaps the baby would inherit that and be a detriment to this Earth, wholly and forever.
> 
> A 16-year old, on the other hand, should have the baby always. I don't really have sympathy for the Responsibility-excuse, she can grow up really fast or seek adopting, loving parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely, but I wouldn't let the 16 year old raise the child for many reasons, adoption, but make them carry it as their punishment. After that I truly doubt they would make that mistake again, and if they did at least you know they are getting their own punishment.
> 
> The rape thing, I think should be the choice of the victim. There are other medical reasons to, and many anti-abortionists would rather let them both die ... which is plain stupid.
Click to expand...


Wow! you are even more brilliant than GT!!


----------



## AllieBaba

Dumbshit. I just came from a training on domestic violence. The last of many I have had in my career.

People who abuse their kids DON'T WANT TO ABORT. The whole concept of "if you eliminate abortion all these unwanted kids are going to suffer" is bullshit. Child abuse and neglect have INCREASED with abortion. They haven't decreased. You de-humanize children and make them disposable, and people will treat them as trash.

How fucking stupid do you have to be not to get it?


----------



## xsited1

tigerbob said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Fortunately, slaves are now considered human beings and are given full rights (in civilized countries).  Minorities have been given full rights.  Gays and lesbians have numerous laws protecting them.  Next in line are the unborn.  And as I said, I don't believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly (or those who support the pro-choicers).
> 
> If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn sounds like a very serious sin to me.  I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Christian.  I believe in heaven and hell.  I am pro choice up to the point I have already expressed in this thread.  Clearly you think I am guilty of a terrible sin and am going straight to hell.
> 
> You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.
> 
> Perhaps I could ask you to pray for me?
Click to expand...


I view myself as free from sin???


----------



## AllieBaba

Random association again.

Or just outright lying. Which is what the pro-abortion sect  has to revert to. They can't win an argument without it.


----------



## Anguille

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely, but I wouldn't let the 16 year old raise the child for many reasons,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in stealing someone's child for no valid reason...
> Very interesting, the way you think- you don't give a damn about the child, yet you want to punish the girl and view the baby as a means of achieving that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many anti-abortionists would rather let them both die ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projection is strong in this one.
> 
> 1. Many anti-abortionists would rather both the mother and child die than allow an abortion to at least save the mother's life if both are in danger, or if just the mother's life is in danger more anti-abortionists would rather the mother die than allow an abortion. Note the important word "many" ... and I know a few on here that fit that as well.
> 
> 2. It's not stealing babies. Traditionally offspring were raised by tribes, not single parents, especially not by parents that already proved to be irresponsible. Some of the best parents were those who adopt, because they wanted to raise the child ... while many who get abortions as a means of birth control *would not want to raise the child in the first place*, and even if they did want to, a 16 year old is not a valid parent ... they still need their own parents to tell them what to do.
> 
> 3. When you accuse someone of being dishonest, you must show proof they are, otherwise it is you who is being dishonest, not them.
Click to expand...

 
I sometimes think it would be a fine thing if those who are so gung ho on forcing women to go through pregnancies and then give up the child on top of it, would have to go through the same thing themselves. Except I'd never wish that sort of start in life on any child.


----------



## AllieBaba

ONCE AGAIN SINCE YOU SEEM TO BE CHALLENGED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ABORTION HAS ANY INFLUENCE ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT.

Unless you want to address the fact that both have increased in step with abortion. 

Or maybe you're actually arguing that poor people shouldn't be ALLOWED to have children?


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Rape victims count for approximately zero percent of women seeking abortions.


  Talk about spin!!!  

Technically any woman who gets pregnant while she is under the age of consent has been raped.


----------



## AllieBaba

Now you go tell the abortion factories that, because they shelter the pricks who get the girls pregnant. Everyone else in the health profession is a mandatory reporter.


----------



## Anguille

G.T. said:


> I only support pro-choice if the sexual act that created the offspring was NOT voluntary with both partners. Did you get raped? I don't support it on any day, if not.


What kind of punishment, if any, do you think would be appropriate and equitable for the male partner of a woman who engaged in sex and got pregnant? Do you think people who use birth control but still get pregnant should be punished as well?  Any compassion for the woman whose pregnancy may render her infertile or worse, kill her?


----------



## Anguille

xsited1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Fortunately, slaves are now considered human beings and are given full rights (in civilized countries).  Minorities have been given full rights.  Gays and lesbians have numerous laws protecting them.  Next in line are the unborn.  And as I said, I don't believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly (or those who support the pro-choicers).
> 
> If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn sounds like a very serious sin to me.  I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
Click to expand...

You have been on this relating slavery to abortion kick for a few days now. It's good analogy but you've got it ass backwards. Pro slavery and pro forced birthers will be regarded in the same unfavorable light in the future. For what is a person who would force a woman against her will to become a human incubator if not just another slave holder?


----------



## Anguille

JBeukema said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fetus needs *and is part of *the Mother's body.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times must I explain this?
Click to expand...


So anyone who needs a woman's body can just take it?


----------



## xsited1

Anguille said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Fortunately, slaves are now considered human beings and are given full rights (in civilized countries).  Minorities have been given full rights.  Gays and lesbians have numerous laws protecting them.  Next in line are the unborn.  And as I said, I don't believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly (or those who support the pro-choicers).
> 
> If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn sounds like a very serious sin to me.  I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been on this relating slavery to abortion kick for a few days now. It's good analogy but you've got it ass backwards. Pro slavery and pro forced birthers will be regarded in the same unfavorable light in the future. For what is a person who would force a woman against her will to become a human incubator if not just another slave holder?
Click to expand...


It's not a 'kick'.  If you look at the rights given people over the centuries, you'll see that I am correct and history will prove it.  I find it amazing that people view women as 'human incubators' and unborn children as fetuses that can be discarded at will.  I simply cannot fathom that mindset, although I realize how easy it is for some people to be brainwashed in this way.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> ONCE AGAIN SINCE YOU SEEM TO BE CHALLENGED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ABORTION HAS ANY INFLUENCE ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT.


So why do you claim that an increase in abortion availability has caused an increase in child abuse? 

Allie, I have a sneaking suspicion, having read many of your virulant and fallacious posts over the past two years, that you are involved in the very profitable adoption industry. Naturally it would be in your best interest financially to see access to abortion curbed, especially for young and lower income girls. They are your best source of product, aren't they? White infants born in the US are highly sought after. No wonder you spend so much time trying to convince these poor girls to go through with the nine months of pregnancy and then hand their newborn over to the adoption agencies. I cannot fathom the cold heartedness it must take to convince a frightened young girl that abortion will scar her for life, all the while knowing that for a woman to have to part with her newborn, after having nourished it within her body is just about the most heart wrenching, emotionally scarring thing any woman should have to suffer. Maybe you even work at one of those fake pregnancy advice clinics when they don't even mention abortion as an option. Where some of them even give free pregnancy tests and then lie to the girls and tell them they aren't pregnant, hoping they won't figure out that they are till it's too late to abort. 
Shame on you, Allie , if you are one of these who exploit poor and innocent girls for profit.


----------



## AllieBaba

What a fucking nut.

Let's talk fallacious. #1 Fallacy: Choosing life is "punishment". #2 Fallacy: Abortion means less child abuse and neglect. #3 Fallacy, eliminating abortion means we'll have a whole population of women "forced" into pregnancy and ultimately death.

What a bunch of horseshit.


----------



## tigerbob

xsited1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Fortunately, slaves are now considered human beings and are given full rights (in civilized countries).  Minorities have been given full rights.  Gays and lesbians have numerous laws protecting them.  Next in line are the unborn.  And as I said, I don't believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly (or those who support the pro-choicers).
> 
> If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn sounds like a very serious sin to me.  I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Christian.  I believe in heaven and hell.  I am pro choice up to the point I have already expressed in this thread.  Clearly you think I am guilty of a terrible sin and am going straight to hell.
> 
> You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.
> 
> Perhaps I could ask you to pray for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I view myself as free from sin???
Click to expand...


I meant free from it as far as the subject under discussion.  

Either way, it doesn't really matter.  If you really feel I am going to hell and you are a Christian, then say a prayer for me.  

In my experience, and this thread is in many ways a good example, far too many Christians are quite happy to sit in judgement of others on this subject, many of them using the most vile names while they do so.  Not many ever remember to say a prayer for those they feel are sinning.  I'm familiar with your posts and, to a degree, the kind of person you are, and I'm sure you're not one of these.


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> What a fucking nut.
> 
> Let's talk fallacious. #1 Fallacy: Choosing life is "punishment". #2 Fallacy: Abortion means less child abuse and neglect. #3 Fallacy, eliminating abortion means we'll have a whole population of women "forced" into pregnancy and ultimately death.
> 
> What a bunch of horseshit.


So you don't deny my suspicions. I was hoping against hope you had not sunk so low.


----------



## AllieBaba

Your suspicions are just evidence of your idiocy. You have yet to support any of your ridiculous claims regarding abortion.


----------



## Anguille

tigerbob said:


> I'm familiar with your posts and, to a degree, the kind of person you are, and I'm sure you're not one of these.


Perhaps you did not see the thread that was deleted on Sat.


----------



## AllieBaba

What does that have to do with the lie that he thinks himself sinless?


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> Your suspicions are just evidence of your idiocy. You have yet to support any of your ridiculous claims regarding abortion.


So. once again, you do not deny that you are part of the adoption industry that exploits young low income girls and women?


----------



## AllieBaba

Is that all you can do? 

It's telling that you don't even attempt to back your ridiculous claims.


----------



## xsited1

tigerbob said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Christian.  I believe in heaven and hell.  I am pro choice up to the point I have already expressed in this thread.  Clearly you think I am guilty of a terrible sin and am going straight to hell.
> 
> You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.
> 
> Perhaps I could ask you to pray for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I view myself as free from sin???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant free from it as far as the subject under discussion.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter.  If you really feel I am going to hell and you are a Christian, then say a prayer for me.
> 
> In my experience, and this thread is in many ways a good example, far too many Christians are quite happy to sit in judgement of others on this subject, many of them using the most vile names while they do so.  Not many ever remember to say a prayer for those they feel are sinning.  I'm familiar with your posts and, to a degree, the kind of person you are, and I'm sure you're not one of these.
Click to expand...


     

You're hilarious!  Psychological Projection, eh?  I've got to thank one of the posters on here for reminding me about this.  It's been so long since College Psychology, I had forgotted about it.  It seems to happen all the time on message boards.



> In classical psychology projection is always seen as a defense mechanism which occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.



Another thing that happens is that people automatically assume they know exactly what you believe and what you're thinking.  For example, if you're against Obama, YOU MUST HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH!  If you are pro-Life, YOU MUST THINK PRO-CHOICERS ARE GOING TO HELL!  If you think Global Warming might not be as bad as Al Gore says it is, YOU MUST HATE THE ENVIRONMENT AND BE A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 



I never said you were going to Hell, I never said I was without sin and I never said that pro-choicers are going to Hell.  I just wouldn't want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.


----------



## tigerbob

Anguille said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with your posts and, to a degree, the kind of person you are, and I'm sure you're not one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not see the thread that was deleted on Sat.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't.  Well, we'll see how he responds.


----------



## tigerbob

tigerbob said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with your posts and, to a degree, the kind of person you are, and I'm sure you're not one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not see the thread that was deleted on Sat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't.  Well, we'll see how he responds.
Click to expand...


My bad.


----------



## Care4all

i think the person who had the abortion will answer on judgment day to her maker, one on one, and she will have as good as chance as any, to be judged fairly and to be forgiven.

I don't think people who just  believe the gvt should stay out of this will be judged one way or the other on it, when their own judgment day comes.... i'm certain there will be many sins of their own, to answer to...and be forgiven for...


----------



## DiveCon

Anguille said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your suspicions are just evidence of your idiocy. You have yet to support any of your ridiculous claims regarding abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> So. once again, you do not deny that you are part of the adoption industry that exploits young low income girls and women?
Click to expand...

this looks a lot like an ad Hom


----------



## tigerbob

xsited1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I view myself as free from sin???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant free from it as far as the subject under discussion.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter.  If you really feel I am going to hell and you are a Christian, then say a prayer for me.
> 
> In my experience, and this thread is in many ways a good example, far too many Christians are quite happy to sit in judgement of others on this subject, many of them using the most vile names while they do so.  Not many ever remember to say a prayer for those they feel are sinning.  I'm familiar with your posts and, to a degree, the kind of person you are, and I'm sure you're not one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're hilarious!  Psychological Projection, eh?  I've got to thank one of the posters on here for reminding me about this.  It's been so long since College Psychology, I had forgotted about it.  It seems to happen all the time on message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In classical psychology projection is always seen as a defense mechanism which occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another thing that happens is that people automatically assume they know exactly what you believe and what you're thinking.  For example, if you're against Obama, YOU MUST HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH!  If you are pro-Life, YOU MUST THINK PRO-CHOICERS ARE GOING TO HELL!  If you think Global Warming might not be as bad as Al Gore says it is, YOU MUST HATE THE ENVIRONMENT AND BE A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
> 
> 
> 
> *I never said you were going to Hell, I never said I was without sin and I never said that pro-choicers are going to Hell.  I just wouldn't want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.*
Click to expand...


Well, that's cleared things up.

And with regard to the bolded comment above, your implication is as clear as crystal but now you're backing away from it while accusing _me_ of psychological projection.  Classic.


----------



## Anguille

Anguille said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape victims count for approximately zero percent of women seeking abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about spin!!!
> 
> Technically any woman who gets pregnant while she is under the age of consent has been raped.
Click to expand...


JBeuk-Enema gave me neg rep for this post but no comment other than an indecipherable emoticon. Must be he hates when a valid point is made.


----------



## JBeukema

joeyc said:


> You haven't shown how the law is unequal,



It has been shown numerous times; you simply keep your eyes closed


> It's obvious to anyone with a brain who the idiot is here, and it's you.



 That's rich.

J





> ust to finish off your dumbass argument: the government has every right to legislate which types of relationships they decide to subsidize.


wait for it...



> They're completely based on the heterosexual monogamous model of marriage


in other words, Modern Christian Marriage...



> and there's no Constitutional mandate that we even receive them.



YOU'RE THE IDIOT WHO'S BEEN GOING ON ABOUT A MANDATE THIS WHOLE TIME



> Instead of being baselessly covetous, you should ask yourself why we have any regulation on benefits and incentives from the government. Using your mentality, I deserve a G.I. bill



If you serve and earn it, yes. Anyone who serves and earns it qualifies, regardless of sex, race, etc.

Also, you're lying once again. You can't even state what 'my mentality' is  The legal recognition of contract has nothjing to do with the welfare state, you idiot. Once again, you show the utter stupidity and dishonest nature of right-wing ideology

By the way, most of what you listed shouldn't even exist.



DiveCon said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your suspicions are just evidence of your idiocy. You have yet to support any of your ridiculous claims regarding abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> So. once again, you do not deny that you are part of the adoption industry that exploits young low income girls and women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this looks a lot like an ad Hom
Click to expand...


I'd say it resembles less an ad hom and more pure, unrefined ore of stupidity and dishonesty.


----------



## JBeukema

Anguille said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape victims count for approximately zero percent of women seeking abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about spin!!!
> 
> Technically any woman who gets pregnant while she is under the age of consent has been raped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JBeuk-Enema gave me neg rep for this post but no comment other than an indecipherable emoticon. Must be he hates when a valid point is made.
Click to expand...


If you consider that to be a 'valid point' you have made it  clear that my conclusion is correct: you're either one of the most retarded and dishonest people on USMB, or you're nothing but a troll.

Do you even know what the word 'rape' really means, you twit?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

AllieBaba said:


> Random association again.
> 
> Or just outright lying. Which is what the pro-abortion sect  has to revert to. They can't win an argument without it.



They can't win an argument WITH IT EITHER... Thus all the angst...

They know they're losing; so they just frail at everything like a thresher...  there's no sound reasoning behind abortion as birth control... NONE!  It's all one ridiculously obvious lie; but it's accepted because it's easier to accept than taking responsibility.

THe left says it's OK to have casual sex... "ITS FUN!"  And No "HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP CAN INTERFERE WITH FUN!"

Of course many a Nazi had a blast plinking those targeted by their rationalizations and when the planet came to it's senses... "FUN" didn't quite cut a viable defense.

They know they're wrong... they're just suffering a strong illusion that 'because they're good people, what they are doing can't be 'THAT WRONG.'

This world is truly turning surreal...


----------



## KittenKoder

Anguille said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape victims count for approximately zero percent of women seeking abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about spin!!!
> 
> Technically any woman who gets pregnant while she is under the age of consent has been raped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JBeuk-Enema gave me neg rep for this post but no comment other than an indecipherable emoticon. Must be he hates when a valid point is made.
Click to expand...


Naw ... he just hates and has nothing else.


----------



## AllieBaba

you know, I've made the point about a hundred times in the last year, but still haven't managed to find anyone who is outraged about the fact that PP refuses to report children who are pregnant, and therefore, the victims of rape.

But glad you two are on board. Now how do you plan to motivate Planned Parenthood to live up to their obligations and instead of protecting rapists, start turning them in?


----------



## KittenKoder

AllieBaba said:


> you know, I've made the point about a hundred times in the last year, but still haven't managed to find anyone who is outraged about the fact that PP refuses to report children who are pregnant, and therefore, the victims of rape.
> 
> But glad you two are on board. Now how do you plan to motivate Planned Parenthood to live up to their obligations and instead of protecting rapists, start turning them in?



I don't like Planned Parenthood and wouldn't care if they were just gotten rid of anyhow ... many of us in the middle of the abortion issue feel that way. Other than free contraception to the poor, they offer almost no good services anyhow and promote breeding more than anything. Even their commercials are vomit inducing.


----------



## tigerbob

PubliusInfinitum said:


> They can't win an argument WITH IT EITHER... Thus all the angst...
> 
> They know they're losing; so they just frail at everything like a thresher...  there's no sound reasoning behind abortion as birth control... NONE!  It's all one ridiculously obvious lie; but it's accepted because it's easier to accept than taking responsibility.
> 
> THe left says it's OK to have casual sex... "ITS FUN!"  And No "HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP CAN INTERFERE WITH FUN!"
> 
> Of course many a Nazi had a blast plinking those targeted by their rationalizations and when the planet came to it's senses... "FUN" didn't quite cut a viable defense.
> 
> They know they're wrong... they're just suffering a strong illusion that 'because they're good people, what they are doing can't be 'THAT WRONG.'
> 
> This world is truly turning surreal...



Why isn't JB screaming "lies, lies, lies!!!" now when he would actually be right.

Er, several points.

Firstly "they"..  Can you stop grouping everyone together and try dealing with individual opinions instead?

Second, we're not "losing", nor do we "frail [sic] at everything".  Opinion is pretty much split down the middle about abortion.  As for flailing at everything, pro-choice arguments tend to be defensive not aggressive - the flailing usually comes from the "let the mother die" (deliberate, despite my earlier point) lobby.

Third, much of the pro choice lobby would never advocate abortion as birth control.  It's a pretty fucked up was to avoid using a condom.

Fourth, it is OK to have casual sex.  But if you're not using protection be aware that you are risking more than just an STD.

Fifth, your parallel between people viewing casual sex as "fun" and nazis viewing the annihilation of the jewish race as "fun" is outrageous.  I'm sure the casual sex side of the comparison can deal with it but how can you trivialize the holocaust in such a manner?  That's fucked up.

Sixth, your "illusion" comment is a double edged sword.  I'll bet those who kill abortion doctors think of themselves as "good people".  Does that make them right?


----------



## AllieBaba

There is no "let the mother die" lobby. That's a "kill babies" lobby lie.


----------



## AllieBaba

And the parallel between baby killers and abortion dr. killers is apt. Both think they're "right," and think in their particular case, they're justified in killing.


----------



## tigerbob

AllieBaba said:


> There is no "let the mother die" lobby. That's a "kill babies" lobby lie.



I agree, hence my comment in brackets - do you not read posts that respond to yours?.  

But so long as we're on a thread titled  "anti-lifers" I'll feel free to use inflammatory language as well.


----------



## AllieBaba

Anti-lifers is accurate. "Kill the mother" isn't. That's the difference. This thread is full of lies about pro-life. I don't see any lies about the anti-lifers.


----------



## tigerbob

AllieBaba said:


> And the parallel between baby killers and abortion dr. killers is apt. Both think they're "right," and think in their particular case, they're justified in killing.



Although of course those who attack abortion doctors do so in the full knowledge that they are breaking the law.  They just "think" the law is wrong, so they are "right" so kill.


----------



## tigerbob

AllieBaba said:


> Anti-lifers is accurate. "Kill the mother" isn't. That's the difference. This thread is full of lies about pro-life. I don't see any lies about the anti-lifers.



Of course you don't Allie.  You're too busy attacking to actually listen.  What have I said about the pro-life lobby that is untrue?


----------



## AllieBaba

tigerbob said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the parallel between baby killers and abortion dr. killers is apt. Both think they're "right," and think in their particular case, they're justified in killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although of course those who attack abortion doctors do so in the full knowledge that they are breaking the law.  They just "think" the law is wrong, so they are "right" so kill.
Click to expand...


Those who kill babies do so in the full knowledge that they're taking life. They "think" the law is right, so they are "right" to kill.


----------



## AllieBaba

tigerbob said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-lifers is accurate. "Kill the mother" isn't. That's the difference. This thread is full of lies about pro-life. I don't see any lies about the anti-lifers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't Allie.  You're too busy attacking to actually listen.  What have I said about the pro-life lobby that is untrue?
Click to expand...


Whatever truth you might have included was negated by the rhetorical lies you used.


----------



## tigerbob

AllieBaba said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the parallel between baby killers and abortion dr. killers is apt. Both think they're "right," and think in their particular case, they're justified in killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although of course those who attack abortion doctors do so in the full knowledge that they are breaking the law.  They just "think" the law is wrong, so they are "right" so kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who kill babies do so in the full knowledge that they're taking life. *They "think" the law is right, so they are "right" to kill.*
Click to expand...


They may view preventing life and taking life as different things.  As with everything, it depends where you consider life begins.

*Touché*.


----------



## tigerbob

AllieBaba said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-lifers is accurate. "Kill the mother" isn't. That's the difference. This thread is full of lies about pro-life. I don't see any lies about the anti-lifers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't Allie.  You're too busy attacking to actually listen.  What have I said about the pro-life lobby that is untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever truth you might have included was negated by the rhetorical lies you used.
Click to expand...


How convenient for your position.  

Care to provide an example of a "rhetorical lie" then, just so I'm sure what you consider a lie?


----------



## JBeukema

tigerbob said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't win an argument WITH IT EITHER... Thus all the angst...
> 
> They know they're losing; so they just frail at everything like a thresher...  there's no sound reasoning behind abortion as birth control... NONE!  It's all one ridiculously obvious lie; but it's accepted because it's easier to accept than taking responsibility.
> 
> THe left says it's OK to have casual sex... "ITS FUN!"  And No "HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP CAN INTERFERE WITH FUN!"
> 
> Of course many a Nazi had a blast plinking those targeted by their rationalizations and when the planet came to it's senses... "FUN" didn't quite cut a viable defense.
> 
> They know they're wrong... they're just suffering a strong illusion that 'because they're good people, what they are doing can't be 'THAT WRONG.'
> 
> This world is truly turning surreal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't JB screaming "lies, lies, lies!!!" now when he would actually be right.
Click to expand...


I didn't even read it; I don't bother reading any of PI's posts anymore, as all he ever does is scream about how there are no leftist americans [/quote]


----------



## JBeukema

Were those links ever provided to support the assertion that 'many' pro-lifers want women to die from non-self-termination ectopic pregnancies?

of course not, because it's a lie.


----------



## KittenKoder

Would you support an abortion if ...

1. Both the mother and offspring would die otherwise.

2. The mother would die but the offspring could still be born.

Be specific.


----------



## tigerbob

JBeukema said:


> Were those links ever provided to support the assertion that 'many' pro-lifers want women to die from non-self-termination ectopic pregnancies?
> 
> of course not, because it's a lie.



I don't know whether it's a lie or not having never gone on a hunt for support, but I suspect it's likely to be untrue.  I don't doubt that there are a few extremists who take that position, but "many" seems highly unlikely.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> Would you support an abortion if ...
> 
> 1. Both the mother and offspring would die otherwise.
> 
> 2. The mother would die but the offspring could still be born.
> 
> Be specific.



This is a stupid question.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support an abortion if ...
> 
> 1. Both the mother and offspring would die otherwise.
> 
> 2. The mother would die but the offspring could still be born.
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid question.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. Answer it or prove you don't really care about whether someone lives or dies, prove that you just want to push your will on others.


----------



## JBeukema

Now you're just lying and throwing around more red herrings.


----------



## tigerbob

KittenKoder said:


> Would you support an abortion if ...
> 
> 1. Both the mother and offspring would die otherwise.
> 
> 2. The mother would die but the offspring could still be born.
> 
> Be specific.



1.  Yes, without question.

2.  Yes, but the later in the pregnancy the more difficult the question becomes and the more uncomfortable I become about saying yes.  I'm assuming that in scenario 2 delivery by c section is not an option that would result in the safety of both mother and baby...?


----------



## KittenKoder

tigerbob said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support an abortion if ...
> 
> 1. Both the mother and offspring would die otherwise.
> 
> 2. The mother would die but the offspring could still be born.
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Yes, without question.
> 
> 2.  Yes, but the later in the pregnancy the more difficult the question becomes and the more uncomfortable I become about saying yes.  I'm assuming that in scenario 2 delivery by c section is not an option that would result in the safety of both mother and baby...?
Click to expand...


Yes, though rare there are some instances in which c-section doesn't save the mother.

As for JB, answer the question, I did not lie, I asked a question and stated what you appear to be doing by your refusal to answer it. So answer or continue to look like a dictator.


----------



## tigerbob

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support an abortion if ...
> 
> 1. Both the mother and offspring would die otherwise.
> 
> 2. The mother would die but the offspring could still be born.
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. Answer it or prove you don't really care about whether someone lives or dies, prove that you just want to push your will on others.
Click to expand...


Life doesn't appear to have grey areas for JB, only black and white.  Grey appears to be either "stupid" or "lies".  At least thats what his historical responses would seem to suggest.


----------



## tigerbob

JBeukema said:


> This is a *stupid* question.





JBeukema said:


> Now you're just *lying* and throwing around more red herrings.


----------



## KittenKoder

tigerbob said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a *stupid* question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just *lying* and throwing around more red herrings.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Don't you hate being right sometimes?


----------



## Contessa_Sharra

tigerbob said:


> That's one I hear frequently, but I will say I have never actually read anything where the death of the mother has been advocated to save the baby under the circumstances we are discussing. I wonder whether it's an urban legend.


 

I know of a case where the mother chose her own death for what she considered the privilege of giving birth to a very wanted child.... and this was in the face of all advice from medical personnel and what her very catholic family felt. 

I think this is the sort of choice only a very determined mother would make.


----------



## KittenKoder

Since JB is not going to answer the question, we will assume he would kill the mother *and* possibly the child instead of allowing an abortion, so he is a "mother killer".


----------



## Gurdari

JBeukema said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry - the child is a distinct human organism in one sense, but if you sever its connection to the Mother, it cannot survive on its own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if I fling you into space, you cannot survive on your own- does that make you and Earth part of the same organism?
> 
> It's a parasitic relationship between two organisms, you twit. Do learn some basic biology. This is not difficult subject matter.
> 
> 
> 
> a fetus needs *and is part of *the Mother's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times must I explain this?
Click to expand...


Hahaha, just once - as long as it isn't ridiculous.

People can go into space, there was recently an anniversary I believe, regarding one such jaunt. 

Separate organism, yes I agree... in certain ways, and in others part of the same body. Until it is no longer PART of her body - it's up to her what is to be done with it. Like anything inside your body. Or mine. Unless you dispute the rights people have over their own person, in which case you leave the child in the same rightless situation. Your call either way, but do apply the logic evenly to both.


----------



## tigerbob

Contessa_Sharra said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's one I hear frequently, but I will say I have never actually read anything where the death of the mother has been advocated to save the baby under the circumstances we are discussing. I wonder whether it's an urban legend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know of a case where the mother chose her own death for what she considered the privilege of giving birth to a very wanted child.... and this was in the face of all advice from medical personnel and what her very catholic family felt.
> 
> I think this is the sort of choice only a very determined mother would make.
Click to expand...


And now the child has to grow up with, at best, one parent.  Either way, it's a heartbreaking scenario.


----------



## xsited1

tigerbob said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant free from it as far as the subject under discussion.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter.  If you really feel I am going to hell and you are a Christian, then say a prayer for me.
> 
> In my experience, and this thread is in many ways a good example, far too many Christians are quite happy to sit in judgement of others on this subject, many of them using the most vile names while they do so.  Not many ever remember to say a prayer for those they feel are sinning.  I'm familiar with your posts and, to a degree, the kind of person you are, and I'm sure you're not one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're hilarious!  Psychological Projection, eh?  I've got to thank one of the posters on here for reminding me about this.  It's been so long since College Psychology, I had forgotted about it.  It seems to happen all the time on message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In classical psychology projection is always seen as a defense mechanism which occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another thing that happens is that people automatically assume they know exactly what you believe and what you're thinking.  For example, if you're against Obama, YOU MUST HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH!  If you are pro-Life, YOU MUST THINK PRO-CHOICERS ARE GOING TO HELL!  If you think Global Warming might not be as bad as Al Gore says it is, YOU MUST HATE THE ENVIRONMENT AND BE A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
> 
> 
> 
> *I never said you were going to Hell, I never said I was without sin and I never said that pro-choicers are going to Hell.  I just wouldn't want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's cleared things up.
> 
> And with regard to the bolded comment above, your implication is as clear as crystal but now you're backing away from it while accusing _me_ of psychological projection.  Classic.
Click to expand...


When I first started reading your posts, I thought you were serious.  Now I realize you're just trolling.  But just in case you're not, understand that I am not backing away from anything.  It's clear that you have taken what I have written and projected your own interpretation of it.  Spin it all you want, but you can't make a judgement based on something you believe I implied unless you ask me for clarification which you did not.  And I find it hilarious that you want me to pray for you because you are pro-choice.  The insanity never ends.

Good luck.


----------



## KittenKoder

KittenKoder said:


> Since JB is not going to answer the question, we will assume he would kill the mother *and* possibly the child instead of allowing an abortion, so he is a "mother killer".



JB is officially a mother killer. See Allie, they do exist.


----------



## tigerbob

xsited1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're hilarious!  Psychological Projection, eh?  I've got to thank one of the posters on here for reminding me about this.  It's been so long since College Psychology, I had forgotted about it.  It seems to happen all the time on message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing that happens is that people automatically assume they know exactly what you believe and what you're thinking.  For example, if you're against Obama, YOU MUST HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH!  If you are pro-Life, YOU MUST THINK PRO-CHOICERS ARE GOING TO HELL!  If you think Global Warming might not be as bad as Al Gore says it is, YOU MUST HATE THE ENVIRONMENT AND BE A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
> 
> 
> 
> *I never said you were going to Hell, I never said I was without sin and I never said that pro-choicers are going to Hell.  I just wouldn't want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's cleared things up.
> 
> And with regard to the bolded comment above, your implication is as clear as crystal but now you're backing away from it while accusing _me_ of psychological projection.  Classic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I first started reading your posts, I thought you were serious.  Now I realize you're just trolling.  But just in case you're not, understand that I am not backing away from anything.  It's clear that you have taken what I have written and projected your own interpretation of it.  Spin it all you want, but you can't make a judgement based on something you believe I implied unless you ask me for clarification which you did not.  And I find it hilarious that you want me to pray for you because you are pro-choice.  The insanity never ends.
> 
> Good luck.
Click to expand...


I'm not spinning anything.  It's you that started this point about projection IMO, but let's ignore that perspective and try to encapsulate our recent exchanges into a series of succinct facts.

I'm pro choice.  You think that's a sin.  Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners.  I asked you to pray for me.  You think that's hilarious.  Does that sum it up clearly or am I projecting?  If so, why don't you have a go?  This is me asking you for clarification.  

Or was the "Good luck" meant to bring the conversation to a close?


----------



## KittenKoder

KittenKoder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since JB is not going to answer the question, we will assume he would kill the mother *and* possibly the child instead of allowing an abortion, so he is a "mother killer".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JB is officially a mother killer. See Allie, they do exist.
Click to expand...


JB, you wrongly called my question "stupid" and still refuse to answer it or even offer a reason for calling it stupid.


----------



## xsited1

tigerbob said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's cleared things up.
> 
> And with regard to the bolded comment above, your implication is as clear as crystal but now you're backing away from it while accusing _me_ of psychological projection.  Classic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I first started reading your posts, I thought you were serious.  Now I realize you're just trolling.  But just in case you're not, understand that I am not backing away from anything.  It's clear that you have taken what I have written and projected your own interpretation of it.  Spin it all you want, but you can't make a judgement based on something you believe I implied unless you ask me for clarification which you did not.  And I find it hilarious that you want me to pray for you because you are pro-choice.  The insanity never ends.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not spinning anything.  It's you that started this point about projection IMO, but let's ignore that perspective and try to encapsulate our recent exchanges into a series of succinct facts.
> 
> I'm pro choice.  You think that's a sin.  Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners.  I asked you to pray for me.  You think that's hilarious.  Does that sum it up clearly or am I projecting?  If so, why don't you have a go?  This is me asking you for clarification.
> 
> Or was the "Good luck" meant to bring the conversation to a close?
Click to expand...


There you go projecting again.  

I said:



> If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn *sounds like *a very serious sin to me. I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.



Sounds like.

You responded with:



> You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.



Where do you come up with this stuff?  Yes, I'm pro-life.  However, I never said or implied that I was free from sin nor did I say I would be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.  -->  Projection.

Now this:



> Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners.  I asked you to pray for me.  You think that's hilarious.



I think it's hilarious that you don't see killing the unborn as a sin and you want me to pray for you.  You obviously don't see the irony here.  Anyway, it made me .

Believe me, I pray for myself, my family, our leaders, the country, all sinners.  All fall short of the glory of God.  That includes me.


----------



## tigerbob

xsited1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I first started reading your posts, I thought you were serious.  Now I realize you're just trolling.  But just in case you're not, understand that I am not backing away from anything.  It's clear that you have taken what I have written and projected your own interpretation of it.  Spin it all you want, but you can't make a judgement based on something you believe I implied unless you ask me for clarification which you did not.  And I find it hilarious that you want me to pray for you because you are pro-choice.  The insanity never ends.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not spinning anything.  It's you that started this point about projection IMO, but let's ignore that perspective and try to encapsulate our recent exchanges into a series of succinct facts.
> 
> I'm pro choice.  You think that's a sin.  Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners.  I asked you to pray for me.  You think that's hilarious.  Does that sum it up clearly or am I projecting?  If so, why don't you have a go?  This is me asking you for clarification.
> 
> Or was the "Good luck" meant to bring the conversation to a close?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go projecting again.
> 
> I said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like.
> 
> You responded with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff?  Yes, I'm pro-life.  However, I never said or implied that I was free from sin nor did I say I would be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.  -->  Projection.
> 
> Now this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners.  I asked you to pray for me.  You think that's hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's hilarious that you don't see killing the unborn as a sin and you want me to pray for you.  You obviously don't see the irony here.  Anyway, it made me .
> 
> Believe me, I pray for myself, my family, our leaders, the country, all sinners.  All fall short of the glory of God.  That includes me.
Click to expand...


If you had really been reading my posts as you say you have, you would know that I believe life begins at the first heartbeat.  

After that point I do not believe abortion should be legal.  

Before that point I don't believe life has begun.  

As such, I don't believe my position is a sinful one.  You clearly disagree (or maybe you don't - I could be unintentionally projecting again).  There's no irony here, merely a different view.

Why don't you drop the whole "killing the unborn" thing since it accomplishes nothing, and simply take issue with my view on where life begins.  Who knows, you might convince me that I'm wrong and get me to change my view.  Of course, I'm presupposing that you view this board as a place to debate and not just to fire off glib one liners and put downs.

This is my last attempt to engage with you on this matter.  Either (a) make it worthwhile, (b) post some more snappy comebacks, or (c) ignore it.  If you go for b or c I promise you'll hear no more from me on this particular exchange of views.


----------



## JBeukema

Bob won't change his mind , no matter the evidence. He has ignored all evidence thus far, and he will continue to do so.


----------



## tigerbob

JBeukema said:


> Bob won't change his mind , no matter the evidence. He has ignored all evidence thus far, and he will continue to do so.



What evidence has been posted that life begins before the first heartbeat?  If there's so much of it, perhaps you can provide a link or the post #?

(Oooh!  Xsited!  I've just thought - is JB projecting here?)


----------



## JBeukema

as i posted before, the most commonly cited scientific defintion of life



> *Homeostasis*: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
> *Organization*: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
> *Metabolism*: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
> *Growth*: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
> *Adaptation*: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
> *Response to stimuli*: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
> *Reproduction*: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.



To say life begins with a heartbeat is just stupid. There are life forms with no heart,  yet which are still alive.


----------



## Diuretic

A foetus is a living thing (yes I did pinch that from ELO).

Now what?


----------



## tigerbob

JBeukema said:


> as i posted before, the most commonly cited scientific defintion of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Homeostasis*: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
> *Organization*: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
> *Metabolism*: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
> *Growth*: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
> *Adaptation*: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
> *Response to stimuli*: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
> *Reproduction*: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say life begins with a heartbeat is just stupid. There are life forms with no heart,  yet which are still alive.
Click to expand...


Now,you see, I think that's stupid.  We're talking about a living human, not an amoeba.  But of course you are right.  Technically life does not require a heartbeat.  And if you believe that masturbation is in effect the murder of sperm I'll concede the point.


----------



## JBeukema

Sperm are not human organisms; your idiocy is irrelevant.


----------



## JBeukema

What is ELO?


----------



## tigerbob

JBeukema said:


> Sperm are not human organisms; your idiocy is irrelevant.



Oh for fuck's sake.  



> She ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge.



I'll leave you to it.


----------



## Anguille

KittenKoder said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about spin!!!
> 
> Technically any woman who gets pregnant while she is under the age of consent has been raped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeuk-Enema gave me neg rep for this post but no comment other than an indecipherable emoticon. Must be he hates when a valid point is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw ... he just hates and has nothing else.
Click to expand...

He probably needed to spread it around before he could neg rep someone else again and my post was handy. Or maybe he noticed that I read about .1 percent of everything he posts and was trying to get me to notice him.


----------



## Anguille

KittenKoder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since JB is not going to answer the question, we will assume he would kill the mother *and* possibly the child instead of allowing an abortion, so he is a "mother killer".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JB is officially a mother killer. See Allie, they do exist.
Click to expand...

In the not so far off past, when there was no modern form of birth control or early stage abortion available, if a woman became very ill from her pregnancy and it became apparent that she would most likely die if the fetus was not aborted. But if it was also of the doctor's opinion that she might last till the moment of birth, long enough to give birth to a baby likely to survive even if the effort would be enough to kill her, in many of those cases, the doctor, usually being a man, consulted the husband rather than the wife and asked him to make the decision. Shall I save your wife or your future child.


----------



## xsited1

tigerbob said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not spinning anything.  It's you that started this point about projection IMO, but let's ignore that perspective and try to encapsulate our recent exchanges into a series of succinct facts.
> 
> I'm pro choice.  You think that's a sin.  Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners.  I asked you to pray for me.  You think that's hilarious.  Does that sum it up clearly or am I projecting?  If so, why don't you have a go?  This is me asking you for clarification.
> 
> Or was the "Good luck" meant to bring the conversation to a close?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go projecting again.
> 
> I said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like.
> 
> You responded with:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff?  Yes, I'm pro-life.  However, I never said or implied that I was free from sin nor did I say I would be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.  -->  Projection.
> 
> Now this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus taught that we should pray for sinners.  I asked you to pray for me.  You think that's hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's hilarious that you don't see killing the unborn as a sin and you want me to pray for you.  You obviously don't see the irony here.  Anyway, it made me .
> 
> Believe me, I pray for myself, my family, our leaders, the country, all sinners.  All fall short of the glory of God.  That includes me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had really been reading my posts as you say you have, you would know that I believe life begins at the first heartbeat.
> 
> After that point I do not believe abortion should be legal.
> 
> Before that point I don't believe life has begun.
> 
> As such, I don't believe my position is a sinful one.  You clearly disagree (or maybe you don't - I could be unintentionally projecting again).  There's no irony here, merely a different view.
> 
> Why don't you drop the whole "killing the unborn" thing since it accomplishes nothing, and simply take issue with my view on where life begins.  Who knows, you might convince me that I'm wrong and get me to change my view.  Of course, I'm presupposing that you view this board as a place to debate and not just to fire off glib one liners and put downs.
> 
> This is my last attempt to engage with you on this matter.  Either (a) make it worthwhile, (b) post some more snappy comebacks, or (c) ignore it.  If you go for b or c I promise you'll hear no more from me on this particular exchange of views.
Click to expand...


If you want to make this exchange worthwhile, you need to stop projecting and assuming you know my position.  You obviously did not.  You also stated that you were pro choice 'up to a point'.  Now you've explained that to me. I'm only reading your posts as they pertain to our exchange.  There are far too many posts in this thread for me to read each and every one of them.  

You started this exchange off with "In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read."  I obviously struck a nerve with you to the point that you posted "You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day."  Wow.

Since you believe life begins when the heart starts beating, I would guess that you are against almost all abortions.  However, I'm sure a form of the morning after pill would be acceptable.  True?  I don't know when life begins.  Perhaps when the heart starts beating, perhaps before.  Since you're a Christian, you know that the Bible is not clear on this issue.  Some quote the verse that God 'knew him before he was born' to mean that all abortions are wrong.  I don't read it that way, but stopping a beating heart does indicate to me that murder has been committed.

Look, I'm just responding to your posts.  You're the one who began this exchange and you're the one who started making assumptions and making snide comments.  I simply followed your lead.  What is sad is that we may have the same views on this subject, yet you say idiotic things like "you view yourself as free from sin."  All I've said is "I would not like to be in (pro-choicer's) shoes come Judgement Day."  

If you want to put me down, fine.  Just don't expect me to sit here and take it.  I realize that is not the Christian way, but I will promise you this:  I will pray for you.


----------



## KittenKoder

Anguille said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> JBeuk-Enema gave me neg rep for this post but no comment other than an indecipherable emoticon. Must be he hates when a valid point is made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw ... he just hates and has nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He probably needed to spread it around before he could neg rep someone else again and my post was handy. Or maybe he noticed that I read about .1 percent of everything he posts and was trying to get me to notice him.
Click to expand...


He hit me twice for this thread 

So I hit him back for the same reasons he accused me of ...  Compare rep values ... a little math .... yeah. Negging me just because you disagree, make sure you have more than I do.


----------



## KittenKoder

Anguille said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since JB is not going to answer the question, we will assume he would kill the mother *and* possibly the child instead of allowing an abortion, so he is a "mother killer".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JB is officially a mother killer. See Allie, they do exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the not so far off past, when there was no modern form of birth control or early stage abortion available, if a woman became very ill from her pregnancy and it became apparent that she would most likely die if the fetus was not aborted. But if it was also of the doctor's opinion that she might last till the moment of birth, long enough to give birth to a baby likely to survive even if the effort would be enough to kill her, in many of those cases, the doctor, usually being a man, consulted the husband rather than the wife and asked him to make the decision. Shall I save your wife or your future child.
Click to expand...


Most people just want to forget how far we have actually come and how quickly.


----------



## JBeukema

KK, you really need to stop taking your issues out on other people. I'm sorry your mom was punished with a kid like you, really, I feel for her, but you need to stop your lying, projecting,and general bitchiness you ever want to have life you can live for any reason other than because you're afraid you'll go to hell.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KK, you really need to stop taking your issues out on other people. I'm sorry your mom was punished with a kid like you, really, I feel for her, but you need to stop your lying, projecting,and general bitchiness you ever want to have life you can live for any reason other than because you're afraid you'll go to hell.



Did I not tell you to answer the question or STFU?

I asked a serious question about a serious topic, I am trying to stay on topic, if you cannot do more than project then you are being dishonest. Now, to repeat it:

Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?

1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.

2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> I am trying to stay on topic,



Bullshit. You've done nothing but call women a punishment for pregnancy and try to attack JB every time this subject has come up. Wait, you did say that those who don't make enough money should have their kids taken away, as well.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to stay on topic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You've done nothing but call women a punishment for pregnancy and try to attack JB every time this subject has come up. Wait, you did say that those who don't make enough money should have their kids taken away, as well.
Click to expand...


Trying to deflect again, it's a simple yes and no question, you can answer different for both scenarios and still only have to type in six letters. Why is it so hard for you to face a black and white answer, since you seem to think it's a black and white world this should be easy for you.

Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?

1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.

2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.


----------



## JBeukema

I've answered your moronic question countless times, and my views are well known.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> I've answered your moronic question countless times, and my views are well known.



No you have not, I just asked it in this thread, and it's not moronic, there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. Your views are not clear because you have not addressed these specific instances, not once. If you had then why don't you at the least, post a link to that. Since you do not even do this, you admit that you are avoiding the question.

Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?

1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.

2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.


----------



## JBeukema

I have addressed this issue numerous times, including earlier in this thread before you posted. It's not my fault you don't read.


----------



## JBeukema

KK needs to learn how to read before repeating stupid questions.


----------



## AllieBaba

xsited1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go projecting again.
> 
> I said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like.
> 
> You responded with:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff?  Yes, I'm pro-life.  However, I never said or implied that I was free from sin nor did I say I would be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.  -->  Projection.
> 
> Now this:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's hilarious that you don't see killing the unborn as a sin and you want me to pray for you.  You obviously don't see the irony here.  Anyway, it made me .
> 
> Believe me, I pray for myself, my family, our leaders, the country, all sinners.  All fall short of the glory of God.  That includes me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had really been reading my posts as you say you have, you would know that I believe life begins at the first heartbeat.
> 
> After that point I do not believe abortion should be legal.
> 
> Before that point I don't believe life has begun.
> 
> As such, I don't believe my position is a sinful one.  You clearly disagree (or maybe you don't - I could be unintentionally projecting again).  There's no irony here, merely a different view.
> 
> Why don't you drop the whole "killing the unborn" thing since it accomplishes nothing, and simply take issue with my view on where life begins.  Who knows, you might convince me that I'm wrong and get me to change my view.  Of course, I'm presupposing that you view this board as a place to debate and not just to fire off glib one liners and put downs.
> 
> This is my last attempt to engage with you on this matter.  Either (a) make it worthwhile, (b) post some more snappy comebacks, or (c) ignore it.  If you go for b or c I promise you'll hear no more from me on this particular exchange of views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to make this exchange worthwhile, you need to stop projecting and assuming you know my position.  You obviously did not.  You also stated that you were pro choice 'up to a point'.  Now you've explained that to me. I'm only reading your posts as they pertain to our exchange.  There are far too many posts in this thread for me to read each and every one of them.
> 
> You started this exchange off with "In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read."  I obviously struck a nerve with you to the point that you posted "You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day."  Wow.
> 
> Since you believe life begins when the heart starts beating, I would guess that you are against almost all abortions.  However, I'm sure a form of the morning after pill would be acceptable.  True?  I don't know when life begins.  Perhaps when the heart starts beating, perhaps before.  Since you're a Christian, you know that the Bible is not clear on this issue.  Some quote the verse that God 'knew him before he was born' to mean that all abortions are wrong.  I don't read it that way, but stopping a beating heart does indicate to me that murder has been committed.
> 
> Look, I'm just responding to your posts.  You're the one who began this exchange and you're the one who started making assumptions and making snide comments.  I simply followed your lead.  What is sad is that we may have the same views on this subject, yet you say idiotic things like "you view yourself as free from sin."  All I've said is "I would not like to be in (pro-choicer's) shoes come Judgement Day."
> 
> If you want to put me down, fine.  Just don't expect me to sit here and take it.  I realize that is not the Christian way, but I will promise you this:  I will pray for you.
Click to expand...


Actually, the bible is clear on this issue. God says that he knows us when were were unformed blobs, and states more than once that of all crimes the slaughter of innocents is the worst.


----------



## Anguille

KittenKoder said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB is officially a mother killer. See Allie, they do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> In the not so far off past, when there was no modern form of birth control or early stage abortion available, if a woman became very ill from her pregnancy and it became apparent that she would most likely die if the fetus was not aborted. But if it was also of the doctor's opinion that she might last till the moment of birth, long enough to give birth to a baby likely to survive even if the effort would be enough to kill her, in many of those cases, the doctor, usually being a man, consulted the husband rather than the wife and asked him to make the decision. Shall I save your wife or your future child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people just want to forget how far we have actually come and how quickly.
Click to expand...

 And still have to go.


----------



## Anguille

Why is it that usually those screaming bloody murder on the topic of abortion, never say anything about how much time in jail a woman who has aborted should get?


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KK needs to learn how to read before repeating stupid questions.



That does not address these specific scenarios and it still would be easier to type yeses or nos. So why are you avoiding the direct questions? Are they too challenging for your wittle mind?

Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?

1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.

2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive. 

... and yes, I like straight forward answers and expect them from "scientific" minds, otherwise you are admitting that you are not scientific.


----------



## AllieBaba

Well according to you, it's a non-issue, as every woman who is denied an abortion is going to die in childbirth.


----------



## AllieBaba

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK needs to learn how to read before repeating stupid questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not address these specific scenarios and it still would be easier to type yeses or nos. So why are you avoiding the direct questions? Are they too challenging for your wittle mind?
> 
> Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?
> 
> 1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.
> 
> 2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.
> 
> ... and yes, I like straight forward answers and expect them from "scientific" minds, otherwise you are admitting that you are not scientific.
Click to expand...



KK, once again..NOBODY HAS PROPOSED THAT WOMEN BE FORCED TO CARRY A CHILD TO TERM IF HER LIFE IS THREATENED BY IT.

Nobody, ever. It's a FALSE DICHOTOMY. A lie made up by the pro-abortionists to make people afraid to take a stand against the murder of babies.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> That does not address these specific scenarios


Clearly reading comprehension is not a skill you've mastered.



JBeukema said:


> --as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it**
> 
> ....
> 
> **such as rare forms of conjoined twins or the medical termination of ectopic or other medically dangerous pregnancy that endangers the life of mother and/or child




Moron

edit:: I should say moron _and liar_


----------



## Anguille

AllieBaba said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK needs to learn how to read before repeating stupid questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not address these specific scenarios and it still would be easier to type yeses or nos. So why are you avoiding the direct questions? Are they too challenging for your wittle mind?
> 
> Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?
> 
> 1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.
> 
> 2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.
> 
> ... and yes, I like straight forward answers and expect them from "scientific" minds, otherwise you are admitting that you are not scientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> KK, once again..NOBODY HAS PROPOSED THAT WOMEN BE FORCED TO CARRY A CHILD TO TERM IF HER LIFE IS THREATENED BY IT.
> 
> Nobody, ever. It's a FALSE DICHOTOMY. A lie made up by the pro-abortionists to make people afraid to take a stand against the murder of babies.
Click to expand...

. Several attempts have been made to pass draconian anti abortion laws which leave out the exception for saving the mother's life. I think S. Dakota was the last state it was attempted in.


----------



## DiveCon

Anguille said:


> Why is it that usually those screaming bloody murder on the topic of abortion, never say anything about how much time in jail a woman who has aborted should get?


the punishment should be they be forced to wear a Chastity belt for 2 years


----------



## Anguille

DiveCon said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that usually those screaming bloody murder on the topic of abortion, never say anything about how much time in jail a woman who has aborted should get?
> 
> 
> 
> the punishment should be they be forced to wear a Chastity belt for 2 years
Click to expand...

I guess you don't think murder is a serious offense.


----------



## KittenKoder

AllieBaba said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK needs to learn how to read before repeating stupid questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not address these specific scenarios and it still would be easier to type yeses or nos. So why are you avoiding the direct questions? Are they too challenging for your wittle mind?
> 
> Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?
> 
> 1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.
> 
> 2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.
> 
> ... and yes, I like straight forward answers and expect them from "scientific" minds, otherwise you are admitting that you are not scientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> KK, once again..NOBODY HAS PROPOSED THAT WOMEN BE FORCED TO CARRY A CHILD TO TERM IF HER LIFE IS THREATENED BY IT.
> 
> Nobody, ever. It's a FALSE DICHOTOMY. A lie made up by the pro-abortionists to make people afraid to take a stand against the murder of babies.
Click to expand...


Allie, I was not originally saying they did, I was in fact trying to find out ... more out of curiosity than anything. Perhaps you can offer your answer to these scenarios just to help ease my curiosity as well?


----------



## AllieBaba

The scenarios are false. Nobody has ever proposed that medically necessary abortions be considered illegal.


----------



## Anguille

KittenKoder said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not address these specific scenarios and it still would be easier to type yeses or nos. So why are you avoiding the direct questions? Are they too challenging for your wittle mind?
> 
> Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?
> 
> 1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.
> 
> 2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.
> 
> ... and yes, I like straight forward answers and expect them from "scientific" minds, otherwise you are admitting that you are not scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KK, once again..NOBODY HAS PROPOSED THAT WOMEN BE FORCED TO CARRY A CHILD TO TERM IF HER LIFE IS THREATENED BY IT.
> 
> Nobody, ever. It's a FALSE DICHOTOMY. A lie made up by the pro-abortionists to make people afraid to take a stand against the murder of babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allie, I was not originally saying they did, I was in fact trying to find out ... more out of curiosity than anything. Perhaps you can offer your answer to these scenarios just to help ease my curiosity as well?
Click to expand...

I think you've posed a perfectly fair question. i don't see why anyone would have a problem giving a straightforward answer to it. 
I would be okay with abortion in either case.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not address these specific scenarios
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly reading comprehension is not a skill you've mastered.
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> --as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it**
> 
> ....
> 
> **such as rare forms of conjoined twins or the medical termination of ectopic or other medically dangerous pregnancy that endangers the life of mother and/or child
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron
> 
> edit:: I should say moron _and liar_
Click to expand...


No ... now you are being dishonest by telling the truth .. but it's still avoiding the question. You addressed general scenarios, I am addressing specific ones. While the first partial requote you offered almost answers the first, the second isn't even close to what I was posing. Just a simple yes or no answer is all I am looking for, why is it so hard for you to answer it? Instead you dance around the topic, avoid it, and distract from it as well as completely go off topic and offer blatant insults and neg reps just for asking the question, when in itself is sad and unintelligent. Just answer, if you think you have already answered the question then why is it so hard for you to answer again but with a more specific answer?


----------



## KittenKoder

AllieBaba said:


> The scenarios are false. Nobody has ever proposed that medically necessary abortions be considered illegal.



That wasn't the question, reread the question, it makes no assumption as to what answers I expect nor is it a "trick" question. It's a simple question with two possible scenarios. If you had no problem answering then why don't you?


----------



## Anguille

Contessa_Sharra said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's one I hear frequently, but I will say I have never actually read anything where the death of the mother has been advocated to save the baby under the circumstances we are discussing. I wonder whether it's an urban legend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know of a case where the mother chose her own death for what she considered the privilege of giving birth to a very wanted child.... and this was in the face of all advice from medical personnel and what her very catholic family felt.
> 
> I think this is the sort of choice only a very determined mother would make.
Click to expand...

  I would be interested to hear more details. What was it that caused her death? At what point during her pregnancy did she make the decision?


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> No ... now you are being dishonest by telling the truth ..






Do you ever think before you post?


I am once again amazed by your utter stupidity and total inability to reason or comprehend logic.


----------



## Anguille

KittenKoder said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scenarios are false. Nobody has ever proposed that medically necessary abortions be considered illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question, reread the question, it makes no assumption as to what answers I expect nor is it a "trick" question. It's a simple question with two possible scenarios. If you had no problem answering then why don't you?
Click to expand...

She also avoided my questions on the nature of pregnancy counseling she does. Let me only imagining the worst.


----------



## AllieBaba

At this point, I don't even know what the flipping question is.


----------



## AllieBaba

I ignored Anguille's bizarre ranting because it was bizarre ranting.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> No ... now you are being dishonest by telling the truth ..



Dumbest fucking post ever.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ... now you are being dishonest by telling the truth ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you post?
> 
> 
> I am once again amazed by your utter stupidity and total inability to reason or comprehend logic.
Click to expand...


If you want to continue to flame and avoid the topic then why don't you go to the Flame Zone and do it? This is getting old, you did not address the question with what I asked, instead of addressing or ignoring it all you had was a lame insult which is really old and over done by you ... which is a great example of your lack of abstract thinking. Now, will you answer or continue these lame flame attempts?

Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?

1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.

2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.


----------



## DiveCon

Anguille said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that usually those screaming bloody murder on the topic of abortion, never say anything about how much time in jail a woman who has aborted should get?
> 
> 
> 
> the punishment should be they be forced to wear a Chastity belt for 2 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don't think murder is a serious offense.
Click to expand...

someone needs a funny bone transplant


----------



## AllieBaba

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ... now you are being dishonest by telling the truth ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you post?
> 
> 
> I am once again amazed by your utter stupidity and total inability to reason or comprehend logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to continue to flame and avoid the topic then why don't you go to the Flame Zone and do it? This is getting old, you did not address the question with what I asked, instead of addressing or ignoring it all you had was a lame insult which is really old and over done by you ... which is a great example of your lack of abstract thinking. Now, will you answer or continue these lame flame attempts?
> 
> Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?
> 
> 1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.
> 
> 2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.
Click to expand...


I didn't answer it because it's like the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. Nobody has ever proposed that abortions be denied to women who have medical emergencies. So I don't like to answer it because it implies that it's even an issue.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> . Now, will you answer



Try not being a retard for ten minutes./ Anyone with half a brain can understand the following.




JBeukema said:


> --as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it**
> 
> ....
> 
> **such as rare forms of conjoined twins or the medical termination of ectopic or other medically dangerous pregnancy that endangers the life of mother and/or child



It's not that complicated.


----------



## KittenKoder

AllieBaba said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you post?
> 
> 
> I am once again amazed by your utter stupidity and total inability to reason or comprehend logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to continue to flame and avoid the topic then why don't you go to the Flame Zone and do it? This is getting old, you did not address the question with what I asked, instead of addressing or ignoring it all you had was a lame insult which is really old and over done by you ... which is a great example of your lack of abstract thinking. Now, will you answer or continue these lame flame attempts?
> 
> Would you be okay with an abortion in these two scenarios?
> 
> 1. The mother and offspring will die if carried to term.
> 
> 2. The mother will die if carried to term, but the offspring could survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't answer it because it's like the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. Nobody has ever proposed that abortions be denied to women who have medical emergencies. So I don't like to answer it because it implies that it's even an issue.
Click to expand...


Really? How is asking your opinion on a matter the same as *"when did you stop beating your wife"*? There is no proof that it isn't an issue either, but that isn't even what was implied. All it implies is that I am curious ... what is wrong with wanting to learn?


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Now, will you answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try not being a retard for ten minutes./ Anyone with half a brain can understand the following.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> --as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it**
> 
> ....
> 
> **such as rare forms of conjoined twins or the medical termination of ectopic or other medically dangerous pregnancy that endangers the life of mother and/or child
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that complicated.
Click to expand...


You are still dancing ... why not just offer a yes or no to the two scenarios?


----------



## AllieBaba

Absolutely abortion has always been, and always will be, allowed in the rare occasions where the mother's life is in danger.


----------



## JBeukema

Allie, is it or is it not very simple to apply what I have said to her scenarios?

If you weren't so stupid, KK, you'd figure it out.


----------



## AllieBaba

I answered it too, but oh well. She's trying to force us to couch it in her terms.


----------



## Anguille

DiveCon said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punishment should be they be forced to wear a Chastity belt for 2 years
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't think murder is a serious offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> someone needs a funny bone transplant
Click to expand...


----------



## KittenKoder

AllieBaba said:


> Absolutely abortion has always been, and always will be, allowed in the rare occasions where the mother's life is in danger.



Well, at least you finally answered. Now for the reason I asked, beyond just a simple curiosity, it's not that people want this to happen, it's that many will avoid the possibilities, as you did for a short time there, and JB is still avoiding giving an honest and direct answer, it's too taboo to consider. This is a problem with some, but not all, pro-lifers, they simply do not want to see the possibility where it is the best option, or even the only option (thus the two specific scenarios).

I have no problem with not allowing it as a means of "birth control", that I can see and even agree with, but also I will admit openly that there are scenarios and circumstances where it is not only a valid option, but also the only possible option. The scenarios I can think of in which such occurs are endless, and thus a simple "yes or no" law is just not possible, which is really a problem on both sides of the issue. Everyone is trying to over simplify it, but when you do that you cannot cover all bases or possibilities. There needs to be a system of checks and balances for such issues and laws, which then over complicates things (our government being a great example of that) or you offer your choices to those in power instead of allowing and insisting people take responsibility for their own actions. It's just not simple, and I hope that this demonstrates it. There were a few with quick and easy answers, which is why the issue is still in the gray legally, those who answer quickly are also those I have noted who already understand the complexity of the issue.

You see, many of the people you put in the pro-choice category are not for killing babies, but are instead for freedom and the right to make your own mistakes, against big government, and some are just unwilling to take the chance that the laws will go too far and result in no option at all. So long as there is a debate between the extremists on this, then it will remain balanced enough, but when the extremists agree on a simple "yes or no" answer, then the balance will be lost.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> JB is still avoiding giving an honest and direct answer, it's too taboo to consider.



The answer is there. You're just too stupid to see it.





> a simple "yes or no" law is just not possible, which is really a problem on both sides of the issue


Actually, it kinda is. See my posts.



> . Everyone is trying to over simplify it, but when you do that you cannot cover all bases or possibilities.


See my posts; my posts covers everything you've forwarded




> You see, many of the people you put in the pro-choice category are not for killing babies,







> but are instead for freedom and the right to make your own mistakes,


nobody's pushed for any law against making mistakes, you twit



> against big government,


Which is why most of them are big-government leftists 


You try to act insightful, but in reality, you're just an idiot.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> Which is why most of them are big-government leftists



That's the same thing as when pro-choice people say that all pro-life people are mother killers ... 

The irony is that you don't see the irony in that.


----------



## JBeukema

Wrong, you idiot. Most of the pro-abortion crowd is 'liberals' who support the nanny state and the modern Democratic party as well as other neoliberal ideologies.


Why can't you go ten posts without showing how dishonest you really are?


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> Wrong, you idiot. Most of the pro-abortion crowd is 'liberals' who support the nanny state and the modern Democratic party as well as other neoliberal ideologies.
> 
> 
> Why can't you go ten posts without showing how dishonest you really are?



Neolibs are not liberals ... here's a hint, true liberals do not like having people tell us what to do ... ever, unless we are paid to do it, or have a personal interest in it.


----------



## JBeukema

You're an idiot. I never said neliberals were true liberals, you twit. If you're going to agree with me, just admit that I'm right and stop trying to make yourself look good.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> You're an idiot. I never said neliberals were true liberals, you twit. If you're going to agree with me, just admit that I'm right and stop trying to make yourself look good.



Then next time say neolibs 

To keep the stroke more accurate instead of making it so broad, because true liberals do not like nanny states, at all. The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have. Generally true liberals prefer a more balanced system of government, one that allows freedoms to all but also protects those freedoms, while the conservatives prefer to be allowed to take the defending of freedoms into their own hand more often. The only huge and vehement difference between the true liberals and conservatives is how budgets are made. Liberals like more social programs while conservatives like more economic stimulus. This is why I am often labeled and independent by the true liberals and conservatives, I agree with both ideals 

Neolibs are the ones that like the banning of everything to "protect" people from themselves, while neocons like the banning of things that "protect" them from the uniqueness of life. You however come across as something completely new, you deserve a hand for this because I thought they didn't exist, you are a neoindependent.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> Then next time say neolibs





JBeukema said:


> as well as other neoliberal ideologies.


moron


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have.



conservatism simply refers to reactionary movements, not to any real ideology



> Liberals like more social programs


No, they don't. 'Progressives' (which is what you're describing) are not liberals



> Neolibs are the ones that like the banning of everything to "protect" people from themselves,


Modern neoliberalism is, just like modern neoconservatism founded upon social authoritarianism. 




> you are a neoindependent.


You're a fucking idiot. 'neoindependent' in nonsensical. An independent is an independent, not an old or a new independent. Nor is independence from political parties directly related to one's ideology other than as evicence that one's ideology is  not strictly blind loyalty to a given party or title.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conservatism simply refers to reactionary movements, not to any real ideology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals like more social programs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they don't. 'Progressives' (which is what you're describing) are liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neolibs are the ones that like the banning of everything to "protect" people from themselves,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Modern neoliberalism is, just like modern neoconservatism founded upon social authoritarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a neoindependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. 'neoindependent' in nonsensical. An independent is an independent, not an old or a new independent. Nor is independence from political parties directly related to one's ideology other than as evicence that one's ideology is  not strictly blind loyalty to a given party or title.
Click to expand...


You are still incapable of posting without being a troll, even when you are trying to discuss something. Crossing labels doesn't make them the same, progressives are not liberals, same species but different breeds. Also, you only used a partial quote of your post to dishonestly make me look bad, that's the same as lying. 

But this fits perfectly with your original topic at least, your contention that pro-choice means anti-life. You are crossing labels just to make another look bad, since most pro-choice do have limits. I say most because there are the extremists in every group, clinic bombers ring any bells? The pro-choice extremists think there should be no restrictions, them you could consider anti-responsibility, but they are still not technically anti-life, unless you want to call all humans such, since we do kill, a *lot*, for many reasons. Yes, I can play semantics very well.


----------



## tigerbob

xsited1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go projecting again.
> 
> I said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like.
> 
> You responded with:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff?  Yes, I'm pro-life.  However, I never said or implied that I was free from sin nor did I say I would be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.  -->  Projection.
> 
> Now this:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's hilarious that you don't see killing the unborn as a sin and you want me to pray for you.  You obviously don't see the irony here.  Anyway, it made me .
> 
> Believe me, I pray for myself, my family, our leaders, the country, all sinners.  All fall short of the glory of God.  That includes me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had really been reading my posts as you say you have, you would know that I believe life begins at the first heartbeat.
> 
> After that point I do not believe abortion should be legal.
> 
> Before that point I don't believe life has begun.
> 
> As such, I don't believe my position is a sinful one.  You clearly disagree (or maybe you don't - I could be unintentionally projecting again).  There's no irony here, merely a different view.
> 
> Why don't you drop the whole "killing the unborn" thing since it accomplishes nothing, and simply take issue with my view on where life begins.  Who knows, you might convince me that I'm wrong and get me to change my view.  Of course, I'm presupposing that you view this board as a place to debate and not just to fire off glib one liners and put downs.
> 
> This is my last attempt to engage with you on this matter.  Either (a) make it worthwhile, (b) post some more snappy comebacks, or (c) ignore it.  If you go for b or c I promise you'll hear no more from me on this particular exchange of views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to make this exchange worthwhile, you need to stop projecting and assuming you know my position.  You obviously did not.  You also stated that you were pro choice 'up to a point'.  Now you've explained that to me. I'm only reading your posts as they pertain to our exchange.  There are far too many posts in this thread for me to read each and every one of them.
> 
> You started this exchange off with "In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read."  I obviously struck a nerve with you to the point that you posted "You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day."  Wow.
> 
> Since you believe life begins when the heart starts beating, I would guess that you are against almost all abortions.  However, I'm sure a form of the morning after pill would be acceptable.  True?  I don't know when life begins.  Perhaps when the heart starts beating, perhaps before.  Since you're a Christian, you know that the Bible is not clear on this issue.  Some quote the verse that God 'knew him before he was born' to mean that all abortions are wrong.  I don't read it that way, but stopping a beating heart does indicate to me that murder has been committed.
> 
> Look, I'm just responding to your posts.  You're the one who began this exchange and you're the one who started making assumptions and making snide comments.  I simply followed your lead.  What is sad is that we may have the same views on this subject, yet you say idiotic things like "you view yourself as free from sin."  All I've said is "I would not like to be in (pro-choicer's) shoes come Judgement Day."
> 
> If you want to put me down, fine.  Just don't expect me to sit here and take it.  I realize that is not the Christian way, but I will promise you this:  I will pray for you.
Click to expand...


I didn't intend to come back to this thread, but your last post makes me feel I had to respond.  I'll try and take it one step at a time and apologize in advance as a fear I'm going to be long winded..

1.  I have never intended to project.  If you feel I've been doing that then be assured it was not my intention.

2.  My comment of "the most upsetting thing I've ever read"  was an emotional reaction to an individual post that, for some reason, I found exceptionally upsetting.  That said, it was a toned down version of my first draft.  In essence, as a Christian, I don't like to be told I am going to hell (I take your point about that not being what you said, but I took "wouldn't like to be in their shoes on judgement day" as having that implication, rightly or wrongly) and I reacted against it.  Once again if I am misquoting you slightly it is not my intent to do so or indeed to deliberately misrepresent your views.  You have now indicated this was not your intention, which I accept completely.  I won't go over the rest of our exchange point by point as I don't think it would achieve anything, save to say I think there's been a misunderstanding.

3.  It is generally accepted that the heart starts beating somewhere in the first trimester (JB has mentioned 3 weeks, I think probably about 6, some people say 8 or 10), so yes, I would probably have a problem with the vast majority of abortions.  I'd guess 90% or more.  I'm not the kind of person that would try to ram that view down the throats of those who disagree, but if I were to be asked to vote on the matter that timeline would shape the way I would cast my vote.  I could certainly not vote for legislation that supported abortions in the second trimester or thereafter.  In fact, even though I want to be compassionate towards the mother, even that slightly different timeframe is probably completely unacceptable to me from a voting perspective.  Despite these 'caveats', I describe myself as pro choice, even though the choice I advocate is less broad than most who describe themselves in similar vein.  I suspect that sometimes people see the term 'pro-choice' and make assumptions. BTW, correct, I think the morning after pill is not only acceptable, but a huge benefit for those who are sexually active but don't want a child.  

4.  I read the bible the way I read it.  If I find it unclear then I try and draw my own conclusions.  This generally means not relying on dogma or the views of religious scholars who I'm sure could run rings about me in a debate.  As such, I agree with you the bible is not clear on this (despite the interpretation of passages where someone feels "the  babe leap within her").  If God wants me to understand something, he'll help me.  I'm not going to rely on theologians whose motives I don't understand.  If the bible is not clear I'll try and make up my own mind.  In this regard, we seem to be broadly in the same area.

5.  I have honestly never intended to put you down.  You may not believe this, but there's nothing I can do about that - if you don't believe me then you don't believe me.  Nor did I ever intend to make snide comments.  I'm truly sorry if they came across that way.  For the purpose of comparison, I'll happily admit that I've intended to make snide comments to JB who I think is an unmitigated horse's arse on almost every subject.

One thing has become clear to me.  I should probably never post my views on an abortion thread again.  Perhaps the taunts of "baby killer" from others have influenced the way I have responded to your views.  Perhaps I have been projecting after all.

One last observation.  Having spent the last 10 years of my career crafting corporate communication for a Fortune 500 company, I have always thought that the words I choose to use are clear and unambiguous.  However, I just read this response to my wife who said "Sounds like you're still being combative".  My wife is pro-life.  Clearly perception and reality are as well separated as ever.  So I've re-drafted this _again_ to tone in down.  I wonder what you'll make of it.....


----------



## AllieBaba

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conservatism simply refers to reactionary movements, not to any real ideology
> 
> No, they don't. 'Progressives' (which is what you're describing) are liberals
> 
> Modern neoliberalism is, just like modern neoconservatism founded upon social authoritarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a neoindependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. 'neoindependent' in nonsensical. An independent is an independent, not an old or a new independent. Nor is independence from political parties directly related to one's ideology other than as evicence that one's ideology is  not strictly blind loyalty to a given party or title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still incapable of posting without being a troll, even when you are trying to discuss something. Crossing labels doesn't make them the same, progressives are not liberals, same species but different breeds. Also, you only used a partial quote of your post to dishonestly make me look bad, that's the same as lying.
> 
> But this fits perfectly with your original topic at least, your contention that pro-choice means anti-life. You are crossing labels just to make another look bad, since most pro-choice do have limits. I say most because there are the extremists in every group, clinic bombers ring any bells? The pro-choice extremists think there should be no restrictions, them you could consider anti-responsibility, but they are still not technically anti-life, unless you want to call all humans such, since we do kill, a *lot*, for many reasons. Yes, I can play semantics very well.
Click to expand...


You just talk yourself in circles and end up meaning nothing.

Pro-choice is anti-life. Because no matter how you dance around it, only one side of the abortion equation results in the loss of life.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> progressives are not liberals


That was actually my point, but it was lost to a typographical error  The context should have made the intent clear despite the error, but you're clearly not smart enough to figure that out.


----------



## joeyc

Don't worry I didn't forget about you.



JBeukema said:


> joeyc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shown how the law is unequal,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been shown numerous times; you simply keep your eyes closed
Click to expand...


Yeah, that must be it. 


> It's obvious to anyone with a brain who the idiot is here, and it's you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's rich.
> 
> J
> wait for it...
> 
> 
> in other words, Modern Christian Marriage...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'RE THE IDIOT WHO'S BEEN GOING ON ABOUT A MANDATE THIS WHOLE TIME
Click to expand...


BECAUSE YOU'RE THE IDIOT WHO THINKS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO REGULATE WHO IT GIVES SUBSIDIES TO.





> If you serve and earn it, yes. Anyone who serves and earns it qualifies, regardless of sex, race, etc.
> 
> Also, you're lying once again. You can't even state what 'my mentality' is  The legal recognition of contract has nothjing to do with the welfare state, you idiot. Once again, you show the utter stupidity and dishonest nature of right-wing ideology
> 
> By the way, most of what you listed shouldn't even exist.



I guess understanding analogy avails you. I'm not surprised. There is no right to "legal recognition of [a] contract". You saying there is doesn't mean there is. I don't know why you'd need to be reminded of that. There's more to the legal issue of marriage than recognition of a contract. I know it's easy to ignore everything else and just focus on that, because that way you don't have to answer for the rest of the issue.


----------



## JBeukema

joeyc said:


> There is no right to "legal recognition of [a] contract"




Yes, there is. That is why we have the phrase 'legally binding contract'. 




> There's more to the legal issue of marriage than recognition of a contract




not really


----------



## Yurt

KittenKoder said:


> No ... now you are being dishonest by telling the truth ..



wow


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

tigerbob said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't win an argument WITH IT EITHER... Thus all the angst...
> 
> They know they're losing; so they just frail at everything like a thresher...  there's no sound reasoning behind abortion as birth control... NONE!  It's all one ridiculously obvious lie; but it's accepted because it's easier to accept than taking responsibility.
> 
> THe left says it's OK to have casual sex... "ITS FUN!"  And No "HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP CAN INTERFERE WITH FUN!"
> 
> Of course many a Nazi had a blast plinking those targeted by their rationalizations and when the planet came to it's senses... "FUN" didn't quite cut a viable defense.
> 
> They know they're wrong... they're just suffering a strong illusion that 'because they're good people, what they are doing can't be 'THAT WRONG.'
> 
> This world is truly turning surreal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er, several points.
> 
> Firstly "they"..  Can you stop grouping everyone together and try dealing with individual opinions instead?
Click to expand...


"They" is a rhetorical device which groups those INDIVIDUALS who share a common understanding... that you erroneously feel that your understanding is unique, is as irrelevant as it is wrong.  So no... I will not cease the practice of accurately grouping commonalities...  and I have a decades long record of tending to every individual argument which is placed before me; and the implication that such is not the case is quite ironically, another fallacious attempt to undermine the opposition's argument without having to speak directly to it...  




> Second, we're not "losing", nor do we "frail [sic] at everything".  Opinion is pretty much split down the middle about abortion.  As for flailing at everything, pro-choice arguments tend to be defensive not aggressive - the flailing usually comes from the "let the mother die" (deliberate, despite my earlier point) lobby.



Oh you're most incontrovertibly losing... and the assertion that you do not 'frail at everything' is dripping in the sweet irony that this very response is a CLASSIC and quite irrefutable example of you 'frailing at everything'...  And opinion is not split down the middle of anything... There is not a single American who does not know that the taking the life of a pre-born baby, on the grounds that the HUMAN LIFE WHICH THE MOTHER CONCEIVED THROUGH HER WILLFULL DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, IS DEEMED TO BE AN INCONVENIENCE, IS WRONG; that it is MURDER.

That there are US Citizens who lack the intellectual means to deal with that FACT and thus need to milk these untenable rationalizations... is irrelvant.  

With regard to 'the imminent death of the Mother, due to the Pre-born baby's existance'... sound moral justification for taking that pre-born baby's life exist in the principle that where one life threatens the other, it is the DUTY of the other to defend itself...

Now is there room for debate on this point?  Sure...  But if it were my life which WERE ACTUALLY BEING THREATENED... Odds are I'd defend it by taking the life of that which manifested the threat.  Some may disagree... as is their right.  But I rarely consult with others in matter of my imminent safety.

With that said... such instances (where the Mother's life is actually at substantial risk by a pregnancy) are indiscernible in terms of a percentage of abortions.  

And ROE is not about such RIGHTS... ROE is about ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL... THE TAKING OF INNOCENT LIFE WHICH IS DEEMED A PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE...  and THAT IS THE ISSUE here.

The imminent threat argument is a damnable LIE.  

I have NO PROBLEM with the Mother and a Doctor making such a decision...  NONE what so ever; as long as that decision is based upon tangible medical facts and can be sustained by a reasonable reveiw of those facts; and where such decisions are found to rest on dubious grounds, those Doctors who came to such should be held to account and suffer the consequences for their malpractice of their art; which resulted in the death of an innocent human life. 

Just like any other homicide...




> Third, much of the pro choice lobby would never advocate abortion as birth control.



Yet that is INCONTROVERTIBLY, PRECISLY THAT WHICH "MOST" OF THE PRO-ABORTION LOBBY ADVOCATES; PERIOD!

You simply do so, through these flaccid little sophistries which conclude that the pre-born human is a parasite; which by its very existance 'threatens' the mother's life...'  

Which is not a reasonable position; and this despite your strong feelings to the contrary.

A threat to the Mother's life rests upon the MEDICAL CERTAINTY, BASED UPON REASONABLE MEDICAL FACTS; which determine that if left to it's natural course, the mother will not survive through the term of the pregnancy; thus the imminent death of BOTH MOTHER AND BABY.  



> Fourth, it is OK to have casual sex.  But if you're not using protection be aware that you are risking more than just an STD.



Ahh... sure... because it's the transmission of the STD... (Which FTR; many in the Medical field believe accurately defines pregnancy; the transmission of a parasite which mutates into a fetus once established in the mother's uterus...)  

Interesting... But here's the thing... If one KNOWS that such actiivty is going to breed the likelihood of such a transmission, one can't escape the RESPONSIBILITY of the RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT ACT.  

You simply want to skip over that part... 

Now where the transmitted STD is NON-HUMAN LIFE... it is perfectly justifiable to treat that STD for TERMINATION.  

Where it IS HUMAN LIFE: THE RESPONSIBILITY SPIKES TO A LIFE LONG COMMITTMENT TO THE HUMAN BEING YOU CONCEIVED...

What I find coming from your argument is the accusation that to hold one to account for that responsibility is, as the BOY KING put it... "PUNISHING THEM WITH A BABY!"

And that argument is absurd on its face...

It's the same argument to claim that wherein someone goes to the Car lot and engages in a contract to buy a new car; that they shouldn't be PUNISHED WITH A CAR PAYMENT!, even IF and WHEN, in the wake of that heady shopping spree they 'come to their senses' and decide to CRUSH THE CAR!



> Fifth, your parallel between people viewing casual sex as "fun" and nazis viewing the annihilation of the jewish race as "fun" is outrageous.




Is it?  So the Nazis engaging in the wholesale slaughter of innocents, due to the NAZIS misguided OPINIONS on the subject, is in no way analogous to the wholesale slaughter of innocents as a result of the MISGUIDED OPINIONS of those who the engage in casual sex and slaughter the innocent life which they conceive through their willful actions?

Golly... I have to disagree.




> I'm sure the casual sex side of the comparison can deal with it but how can you trivialize the holocaust in such a manner?  That's fucked up.



I doubt there is an end to the things which you're sure about that are just as absurd as this conclusion... if you'd like to specify a few, I'll deal with'em as you trot'em out.

But in this instance, what you've done is to admit by default, that you do not recognize the Pre-born human life as being at equity with any other human life... thus undermining the whole of your argument.

On the one hand you want to come off as a wise moderate who is defending the right of women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy... but otherwise respect the humanity of the pre-born human life...  and on the other, you overtly declare that the taking of that human life, in numbers which DWARF the holocaust by many orders of magnitude; that this "trivializes" the lessor atrocity...  

When in point of fact; they are both atrocious acts of unspeakable cruelty, unbridled ignorance and incomprehensible crimes against humanity.


> Sixth, your "illusion" comment is a double edged sword.  I'll bet those who kill abortion doctors think of themselves as "good people".  Does that make them right?



And the Abortion doctors think of themselves as good people... despite their livelihood being founded upon the death of the most innocent of human life.

But what makes those who take the lives of such Doctors, right; is that they are protecting innocent human life; which is the duty of every individual.

Where I disagree with them, is in their not being present at the abortion; where the life is present and the threat is imminent.

Again the issue is not distinct from any other taking of human life...  If one is present where another's life is threatened... it is the duty of every free sovereign to defend that innocent life.

But one cannot justifiably take action in retribution... 

Such is a judgement call on the part of the individual; and for such, where one takes the life of another, which they reasonably believe is willfully engaged in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent; they will pay with their own life... where that wholesale slaughter of innocent life has been sanctioned by the prevailing power of the State.

You believe that because it's "LEGAL" that it's RIGHT...  other's disagree in the strongest terms.

Again, this will all work itself out in the looming civil war...  A war which will inevtiably come as a result of a divided culture, where diametrically oppossing 'OPINIONS' can no longer sustain any means to compromise... 

The Ideological left advances with every compromise and with every advance the culture slides further into decay... sadly, that which the left attacks is the culture's principled foundation.  In this case, the principle that human life is sacred.

Now when you add the natural tendency of mankind to resolve such contention through war; with the cultural ramifications of DECADES of indoctrination which has undermined any sense of the sanctity of human life... or the moral obligations common to devine human rights...  the only potential result is a war which will realize unspeakable, dare I say, incomprehensible... brutality.

Now my position is now, what it always has been... which is, that to the extent of my means, I advocate for a cessation of the advancement of the addle-minded notions of the left...  I present, again to the extent of my means, intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned arguments FOR THOSE IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLES WHICH SUSTAIN A SOUND CULTURE... 

You take, at least on this instance, the countering point of view...

Now the problem comes when one realizes that such wars rarely come with a ton of warning... Oh sure, in hindsight there seems a clear enough set of indications; but foresight rarely enjoys that perspective.  

So feel free to keep pushing TB...  its your 'RIGHT'... unless you believe as do I, that one's RIGHTS come with RESPONSIBILITY to not violate the rights of others as one exercises those rights; if you DO... well then ya might want to reconsider that... as the civil war which inevitably results from this, is going to be a MAJOR VIOLATION OF ALL OF THEM and for EVERYONE; and from where I sit... its 100% the responsibility of the ideological left and for that, every single one of them is going to be held to account.


----------



## JBeukema

The probability of someone reading the entirety of your rantings is negatively correlated with the use of caps lock...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

JBeukema said:


> The probability of someone reading the entirety of your rantings is negatively correlated with the use of caps lock...



There is actually no potential correlation between the use of devices which accentuate emphasis and the likelihood of those with an interest in and the intellectual means to reason through the issue at hand, to read an advocacy of such an issue.

Such rationalizations are typical of those saddled with sub-par intellectual means; who would otherwise love to engage the argument, but who desperately need something to which they can cling, as they fail to sustain their addle-minded, but closely held feelings... and this as a means to spare their sagging self esteems.


----------



## tigerbob

PubliusInfinitum said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't win an argument WITH IT EITHER... Thus all the angst...
> 
> They know they're losing; so they just frail at everything like a thresher...  there's no sound reasoning behind abortion as birth control... NONE!  It's all one ridiculously obvious lie; but it's accepted because it's easier to accept than taking responsibility.
> 
> THe left says it's OK to have casual sex... "ITS FUN!"  And No "HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP CAN INTERFERE WITH FUN!"
> 
> Of course many a Nazi had a blast plinking those targeted by their rationalizations and when the planet came to it's senses... "FUN" didn't quite cut a viable defense.
> 
> They know they're wrong... they're just suffering a strong illusion that 'because they're good people, what they are doing can't be 'THAT WRONG.'
> 
> This world is truly turning surreal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er, several points.
> 
> Firstly "they"..  Can you stop grouping everyone together and try dealing with individual opinions instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They" is a rhetorical device which groups those INDIVIDUALS who share a common understanding... that you erroneously feel that your understanding is unique, is as irrelevant as it is wrong.  So no... I will not cease the practice of accurately grouping commonalities...  and I have a decades long record of tending to every individual argument which is placed before me; and the implication that such is not the case is quite ironically, another fallacious attempt to undermine the opposition's argument without having to speak directly to it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you're most incontrovertibly losing... and the assertion that you do not 'frail at everything' is dripping in the sweet irony that this very response is a CLASSIC and quite irrefutable example of you 'frailing at everything'...  And opinion is not split down the middle of anything... There is not a single American who does not know that the taking the life of a pre-born baby, on the grounds that the HUMAN LIFE WHICH THE MOTHER CONCEIVED THROUGH HER WILLFULL DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, IS DEEMED TO BE AN INCONVENIENCE, IS WRONG; that it is MURDER.
> 
> That there are US Citizens who lack the intellectual means to deal with that FACT and thus need to milk these untenable rationalizations... is irrelvant.
> 
> With regard to 'the imminent death of the Mother, due to the Pre-born baby's existance'... sound moral justification for taking that pre-born baby's life exist in the principle that where one life threatens the other, it is the DUTY of the other to defend itself...
> 
> Now is there room for debate on this point?  Sure...  But if it were my life which WERE ACTUALLY BEING THREATENED... Odds are I'd defend it by taking the life of that which manifested the threat.  Some may disagree... as is their right.  But I rarely consult with others in matter of my imminent safety.
> 
> With that said... such instances (where the Mother's life is actually at substantial risk by a pregnancy) are indiscernible in terms of a percentage of abortions.
> 
> And ROE is not about such RIGHTS... ROE is about ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL... THE TAKING OF INNOCENT LIFE WHICH IS DEEMED A PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE...  and THAT IS THE ISSUE here.
> 
> The imminent threat argument is a damnable LIE.
> 
> I have NO PROBLEM with the Mother and a Doctor making such a decision...  NONE what so ever; as long as that decision is based upon tangible medical facts and can be sustained by a reasonable reveiw of those facts; and where such decisions are found to rest on dubious grounds, those Doctors who came to such should be held to account and suffer the consequences for their malpractice of their art; which resulted in the death of an innocent human life.
> 
> Just like any other homicide...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet that is INCONTROVERTIBLY, PRECISLY THAT WHICH "MOST" OF THE PRO-ABORTION LOBBY ADVOCATES; PERIOD!
> 
> You simply do so, through these flaccid little sophistries which conclude that the pre-born human is a parasite; which by its very existance 'threatens' the mother's life...'
> 
> Which is not a reasonable position; and this despite your strong feelings to the contrary.
> 
> A threat to the Mother's life rests upon the MEDICAL CERTAINTY, BASED UPON REASONABLE MEDICAL FACTS; which determine that if left to it's natural course, the mother will not survive through the term of the pregnancy; thus the imminent death of BOTH MOTHER AND BABY.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh... sure... because it's the transmission of the STD... (Which FTR; many in the Medical field believe accurately defines pregnancy; the transmission of a parasite which mutates into a fetus once established in the mother's uterus...)
> 
> Interesting... But here's the thing... If one KNOWS that such actiivty is going to breed the likelihood of such a transmission, one can't escape the RESPONSIBILITY of the RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT ACT.
> 
> You simply want to skip over that part...
> 
> Now where the transmitted STD is NON-HUMAN LIFE... it is perfectly justifiable to treat that STD for TERMINATION.
> 
> Where it IS HUMAN LIFE: THE RESPONSIBILITY SPIKES TO A LIFE LONG COMMITTMENT TO THE HUMAN BEING YOU CONCEIVED...
> 
> What I find coming from your argument is the accusation that to hold one to account for that responsibility is, as the BOY KING put it... "PUNISHING THEM WITH A BABY!"
> 
> And that argument is absurd on its face...
> 
> It's the same argument to claim that wherein someone goes to the Car lot and engages in a contract to buy a new car; that they shouldn't be PUNISHED WITH A CAR PAYMENT!, even IF and WHEN, in the wake of that heady shopping spree they 'come to their senses' and decide to CRUSH THE CAR!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?  So the Nazis engaging in the wholesale slaughter of innocents, due to the NAZIS misguided OPINIONS on the subject, is in no way analogous to the wholesale slaughter of innocents as a result of the MISGUIDED OPINIONS of those who the engage in casual sex and slaughter the innocent life which they conceive through their willful actions?
> 
> Golly... I have to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the casual sex side of the comparison can deal with it but how can you trivialize the holocaust in such a manner?  That's fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt there is an end to the things which you're sure about that are just as absurd as this conclusion... if you'd like to specify a few, I'll deal with'em as you trot'em out.
> 
> But in this instance, what you've done is to admit by default, that you do not recognize the Pre-born human life as being at equity with any other human life... thus undermining the whole of your argument.
> 
> On the one hand you want to come off as a wise moderate who is defending the right of women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy... but otherwise respect the humanity of the pre-born human life...  and on the other, you overtly declare that the taking of that human life, in numbers which DWARF the holocaust by many orders of magnitude; that this "trivializes" the lessor atrocity...
> 
> When in point of fact; they are both atrocious acts of unspeakable cruelty, unbridled ignorance and incomprehensible crimes against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sixth, your "illusion" comment is a double edged sword.  I'll bet those who kill abortion doctors think of themselves as "good people".  Does that make them right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Abortion doctors think of themselves as good people... despite their livelihood being founded upon the death of the most innocent of human life.
> 
> But what makes those who take the lives of such Doctors, right; is that they are protecting innocent human life; which is the duty of every individual.
> 
> Where I disagree with them, is in their not being present at the abortion; where the life is present and the threat is imminent.
> 
> Again the issue is not distinct from any other taking of human life...  If one is present where another's life is threatened... it is the duty of every free sovereign to defend that innocent life.
> 
> But one cannot justifiably take action in retribution...
> 
> Such is a judgement call on the part of the individual; and for such, where one takes the life of another, which they reasonably believe is willfully engaged in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent; they will pay with their own life... where that wholesale slaughter of innocent life has been sanctioned by the prevailing power of the State.
> 
> You believe that because it's "LEGAL" that it's RIGHT...  other's disagree in the strongest terms.
> 
> Again, this will all work itself out in the looming civil war...  A war which will inevtiably come as a result of a divided culture, where diametrically oppossing 'OPINIONS' can no longer sustain any means to compromise...
> 
> The Ideological left advances with every compromise and with every advance the culture slides further into decay... sadly, that which the left attacks is the culture's principled foundation.  In this case, the principle that human life is sacred.
> 
> Now when you add the natural tendency of mankind to resolve such contention through war; with the cultural ramifications of DECADES of indoctrination which has undermined any sense of the sanctity of human life... or the moral obligations common to devine human rights...  the only potential result is a war which will realize unspeakable, dare I say, incomprehensible... brutality.
> 
> Now my position is now, what it always has been... which is, that to the extent of my means, I advocate for a cessation of the advancement of the addle-minded notions of the left...  I present, again to the extent of my means, intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned arguments FOR THOSE IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLES WHICH SUSTAIN A SOUND CULTURE...
> 
> You take, at least on this instance, the countering point of view...
> 
> Now the problem comes when one realizes that such wars rarely come with a ton of warning... Oh sure, in hindsight there seems a clear enough set of indications; but foresight rarely enjoys that perspective.
> 
> So feel free to keep pushing TB...  its your 'RIGHT'... unless you believe as do I, that one's RIGHTS come with RESPONSIBILITY to not violate the rights of others as one exercises those rights; if you DO... well then ya might want to reconsider that... as the civil war which inevitably results from this, is going to be a MAJOR VIOLATION OF ALL OF THEM and for EVERYONE; and from where I sit... its 100% the responsibility of the ideological left and for that, every single one of them is going to be held to account.
Click to expand...


Thanks for sending me a PM to tell me you had answered my earlier post.  

This post is to confirm that I have read all your comments, that I understand most of them, don't understand some of them, disagree with pretty much all of them, and have determined that responding to them individually would be a waste of my time.

But thanks for letting me know.  I had removed my subscription.


----------



## Care4all

The thing is, that a fetus is a separate individual, from pregnancy onward imo.

Is it a fully formed human being, NO!  
*
BUT it is an individual human that IS BEING FORMED....in the Mother's womb.*

The opposite sides always seem to make the claim with part of that statement as TRUTH....no one side seems to account for the other half of the statement.

What I mean is:

The prolife side will take hold on the fetus being an individual but not mention it is not a fully formed human for the most part when being aborted, or take the position that the mother is an individual as well and has her own individual decisions to make regarding her being the host for 9 months or not, to this separate individual offspring.  

The prochoice will take hold of the position that the fetus is not fully formed and the mother's rights or concerns, outweigh those of the right to life of the forming fetus who has to be hosted by the offspring's mother in order to even exist, while truly ignoring the fact that all of us here today were fetuses and are here today because we were allowed to come in to fruition, being BORN and that when we ourselves were fetuses, we were no less human than we are now, though we may not have achieved the terms of personhood, or protection under the law...IT STILL IS a separate individual, which the mother is choosing the fate of, after the fetus's biological clock started ticking.

I don't think that abortion is taken as lightly as many proclaim on both sides of the aisle, by the mother to be....I think it would be a horrible position to be in, a heart wrenching and scary position to be in, especially if I were one of the 16 or 17 year olds that got themselves in to the position of being pregnant, out of wedlock, because you failed to protect yourself and went with the heat of the moment, or felt pressure of sorts to do such.

The problem of out of wedlock babies was not as dire in the good ole days because there was no birth control for the woman other than rhythmic method which was iffy at best, and single men fooling around KNEW that it was UP TO THEM to use protection or they would be seeing wedding bells down the road....most men did not want their own children to not have a father.....they seemed to own up to their own fatherhood responsibility more....wanted the best or more for their own kids, back then....but I could be wrong, just seems that way to this ole timer....

Anyway, ignoring the mother to be's individual decision, for whatever the reason she comes to, whether in panic, whether a mistake, whether well thought out...to abort HER CHILD to be, early on in pregnancy is not the answer to this very concerning issue of abortion...

 and the slippery slope of trying to determine when another individual, in this case the growing and forming fetus, has some worth as a human being in process....as this forming human being, and not recognizing such could lead to (the slippery slope) of determining that disabled people have less worth than a healthy person, or a mentally retarded person has more worth than another healthy individual and it starts us down that slope of making our own decisions on someone elses worth, based on our own opinion and could lead to socialized programs enforcing such thoughts....or bigotted and racist measures?

I guess what I am trying to say is that although I am prolife and am not advocating the laws on the books to be reversed, I am advocating that we all search our souls and know when this is done that a fetus is something more than a glob of cells of nothingness...

i think it is important to not rewrite the semantics of what is occuring with abortion by calling it a glob of cells similar to a toenail etc because I feel that this will desensitize our public on the importance of every human life, including the disabled, mentally retarded, deformed or someone in need of assistance of a machine, like oxygen, to carry on....

We don't want every girl out there to think that an abortion is a light matter, because it is NOT a light matter, it is a very complicated and hard decision to make I would venture to say and it should STAY THAT WAY....not be thought of like this is just an alternative to the pill or using protection....imo.


----------



## joeyc

JBeukema said:


> joeyc said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no right to "legal recognition of [a] contract"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is. That is why we have the phrase 'legally binding contract'.
Click to expand...


You might as well have just said, "hi, I'm a big dumbass with nothing left to say." That would've made more sense than this.




> There's more to the legal issue of marriage than recognition of a contract
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not really
Click to expand...


How descriptive. 

I'll leave you alone, since it's obvious you've run out of a counter-argument.


----------



## mskafka

AllieBaba said:


> Ah, so men aren't allowed to opine about the slaughter of children.
> 
> Therefore, women shouldn't be allowed to opine about rape. After all, what does a woman know about the urge to rape?



Oh my God!


----------



## mskafka

xsited1 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History will not remember pro-choicers kindly.  They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> The old, "Yer gonna go to hell yes ye are!! tactic.
> Save it for feebleminded.
> 
> If there_ is_ a Judgment Day, those who tried to infringe on the civil rights of others will have some serious 'splainin' to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  That's why I said they would be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  History will say, "Both infringed on the civil rights of others.  Both treated their victims as less than human.  Both believed that what they were doing was right.  Both actions were legal at the time."
> 
> Let us hope that humanity will become more enlightened by then.
Click to expand...


Yes, on both sides.  Let's hope that the need to perform any more abortions will decrease.  And let's hope that the need to murder the people doing it will decrease.  Both sides are zealous.

  I have a novel idea: everyone mind your own business.  What a person does, is between them and the Almighty.  It is not for you (whomever) to judge or decide.  But that is too difficult.  It is much easier to hate one another.  It is much easier to grit your teeth and point out the mistakes or shortcomings of the other, when you yourself are a sinner as well as they.  Paul said, "There is noone righteous.  No, not one".  And it is absolutely true.  But we seem to forget that.


----------



## mskafka

Care4all said:


> The thing is, that a fetus is a separate individual, from pregnancy onward imo.
> 
> Is it a fully formed human being, NO!
> *
> BUT it is an individual human that IS BEING FORMED....in the Mother's womb.*
> 
> The opposite sides always seem to make the claim with part of that statement as TRUTH....no one side seems to account for the other half of the statement.
> 
> What I mean is:
> 
> The prolife side will take hold on the fetus being an individual but not mention it is not a fully formed human for the most part when being aborted, or take the position that the mother is an individual as well and has her own individual decisions to make regarding her being the host for 9 months or not, to this separate individual offspring.
> 
> The prochoice will take hold of the position that the fetus is not fully formed and the mother's rights or concerns, outweigh those of the right to life of the forming fetus who has to be hosted by the offspring's mother in order to even exist, while truly ignoring the fact that all of us here today were fetuses and are here today because we were allowed to come in to fruition, being BORN and that when we ourselves were fetuses, we were no less human than we are now, though we may not have achieved the terms of personhood, or protection under the law...IT STILL IS a separate individual, which the mother is choosing the fate of, after the fetus's biological clock started ticking.
> 
> I don't think that abortion is taken as lightly as many proclaim on both sides of the aisle, by the mother to be....I think it would be a horrible position to be in, a heart wrenching and scary position to be in, especially if I were one of the 16 or 17 year olds that got themselves in to the position of being pregnant, out of wedlock, because you failed to protect yourself and went with the heat of the moment, or felt pressure of sorts to do such.
> 
> The problem of out of wedlock babies was not as dire in the good ole days because there was no birth control for the woman other than rhythmic method which was iffy at best, and single men fooling around KNEW that it was UP TO THEM to use protection or they would be seeing wedding bells down the road....most men did not want their own children to not have a father.....they seemed to own up to their own fatherhood responsibility more....wanted the best or more for their own kids, back then....but I could be wrong, just seems that way to this ole timer....
> 
> Anyway, ignoring the mother to be's individual decision, for whatever the reason she comes to, whether in panic, whether a mistake, whether well thought out...to abort HER CHILD to be, early on in pregnancy is not the answer to this very concerning issue of abortion...
> 
> and the slippery slope of trying to determine when another individual, in this case the growing and forming fetus, has some worth as a human being in process....as this forming human being, and not recognizing such could lead to (the slippery slope) of determining that disabled people have less worth than a healthy person, or a mentally retarded person has more worth than another healthy individual and it starts us down that slope of making our own decisions on someone elses worth, based on our own opinion and could lead to socialized programs enforcing such thoughts....or bigotted and racist measures?
> 
> I guess what I am trying to say is that although I am prolife and am not advocating the laws on the books to be reversed, I am advocating that we all search our souls and know when this is done that a fetus is something more than a glob of cells of nothingness...
> 
> i think it is important to not rewrite the semantics of what is occuring with abortion by calling it a glob of cells similar to a toenail etc because I feel that this will desensitize our public on the importance of every human life, including the disabled, mentally retarded, deformed or someone in need of assistance of a machine, like oxygen, to carry on....
> 
> We don't want every girl out there to think that an abortion is a light matter, because it is NOT a light matter, it is a very complicated and hard decision to make I would venture to say and it should STAY THAT WAY....not be thought of like this is just an alternative to the pill or using protection....imo.



Great insight!


----------



## AllieBaba

mskafka said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old, "Yer gonna go to hell yes ye are!! tactic.
> Save it for feebleminded.
> 
> If there_ is_ a Judgment Day, those who tried to infringe on the civil rights of others will have some serious 'splainin' to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  That's why I said they would be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  History will say, "Both infringed on the civil rights of others.  Both treated their victims as less than human.  Both believed that what they were doing was right.  Both actions were legal at the time."
> 
> Let us hope that humanity will become more enlightened by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, on both sides.  Let's hope that the need to perform any more abortions will decrease.  And let's hope that the need to murder the people doing it will decrease.  Both sides are zealous.
> 
> I have a novel idea: everyone mind your own business.  What a person does, is between them and the Almighty.  It is not for you (whomever) to judge or decide.  But that is too difficult.  It is much easier to hate one another.  It is much easier to grit your teeth and point out the mistakes or shortcomings of the other, when you yourself are a sinner as well as they.  Paul said, "There is noone righteous.  No, not one".  And it is absolutely true.  But we seem to forget that.
Click to expand...


I haven't forgotten it. However, there's a difference between respecting a person's beliefs are between him or her and God, and ignoring criminal, murderous behavior because "that's between him and God." No, it's not just between him and God when PEOPLE ARE BEING HURT AND KILLED by the behavior.


----------



## mskafka

AllieBaba said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  That's why I said they would be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners.  History will say, "Both infringed on the civil rights of others.  Both treated their victims as less than human.  Both believed that what they were doing was right.  Both actions were legal at the time."
> 
> Let us hope that humanity will become more enlightened by then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, on both sides.  Let's hope that the need to perform any more abortions will decrease.  And let's hope that the need to murder the people doing it will decrease.  Both sides are zealous.
> 
> I have a novel idea: everyone mind your own business.  What a person does, is between them and the Almighty.  It is not for you (whomever) to judge or decide.  But that is too difficult.  It is much easier to hate one another.  It is much easier to grit your teeth and point out the mistakes or shortcomings of the other, when you yourself are a sinner as well as they.  Paul said, "There is noone righteous.  No, not one".  And it is absolutely true.  But we seem to forget that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't forgotten it. However, there's a difference between respecting a person's beliefs are between him or her and God, and ignoring criminal, murderous behavior because "that's between him and God." No, it's not just between him and God when PEOPLE ARE BEING HURT AND KILLED by the behavior.
Click to expand...



Believe me.  People who bomb abortion clinics, and shoot people to satiate their self-righteous beliefs, are criminally insane to the highest degree.  

I don't believe that women wake up in the morning and say to themselves:  "I think that I'll go and get knocked up, so that I can get an abortion.".  Women who make those decisions (the majority) I'm sure don't make them lightly.  It is such a touchy subject.  But it's not my body, so I don't have a say in the matter.  I will never say that I will NEVER be faced with that decision, because noone knows what tomorrow brings.  

And noone who camps outside of an abortion clinic with a 12-gauge should be breaking their arms patting themselves on the back.  Honestly, I believe that these people have an axe to grind, and these murders are justified in their depraved minds.


----------

